https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380707 Refund under Notification No. 52/2011-ST could not be denied merely because shipping bills and BRCs stood in the name of MMTC, where the export was made through a compulsory canalised channel under a back-to-back arrangement and the claimant remained the substantive exporter. The Tribunal treated the appellant as the exporter for refund purposes because the foreign sale was linked to its supply, MMTC acted only as the mandated export channel, the services had a nexus with the export, and foreign exchange was realised. The refund claim was therefore admissible and the denial was set aside. en-us Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 May 2019 10:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380707 Refund under Notification No. 52/2011-ST could not be denied merely because shipping bills and BRCs stood in the name of MMTC, where the export was made through a compulsory canalised channel under a back-to-back arrangement and the claimant remained the substantive exporter. The Tribunal treated the appellant as the exporter for refund purposes because the foreign sale was linked to its supply, MMTC acted only as the mandated export channel, the services had a nexus with the export, and foreign exchange was realised. The refund claim was therefore admissible and the denial was set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380707