https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282192 Refund under Notification No. 41/2012-ST cannot be denied merely because the claimant filed the refund in two parts instead of one where the input services were used for export of goods. The export nexus and use of the services were undisputed, so the procedural objection did not defeat the substantive entitlement to refund. The denial was therefore unsustainable because a minor filing irregularity should not override the notification's purpose of relieving export-related service tax burden. en-us Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Aug 2019 17:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282192 Refund under Notification No. 41/2012-ST cannot be denied merely because the claimant filed the refund in two parts instead of one where the input services were used for export of goods. The export nexus and use of the services were undisputed, so the procedural objection did not defeat the substantive entitlement to refund. The denial was therefore unsustainable because a minor filing irregularity should not override the notification's purpose of relieving export-related service tax burden. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282192