https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793419 Conflicting views arose on refund claims under service tax rebate notifications, including whether Notification No. 17/2009-ST or Notification No. 41/2012-Service Tax applied to claims resubmitted after return for want of export documents. One view treated proof of export as essential to substantial compliance and held that resubmission after one year was barred by limitation. The other view held that the refund right accrued on export under Notification No. 17/2009-ST, that the original filings substantially complied with the scheme, and that limitation ran from the original filing date. The matter was left unresolved on difference of opinion and placed before the President for further action. en-us Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Jun 2026 08:32:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793419 Conflicting views arose on refund claims under service tax rebate notifications, including whether Notification No. 17/2009-ST or Notification No. 41/2012-Service Tax applied to claims resubmitted after return for want of export documents. One view treated proof of export as essential to substantial compliance and held that resubmission after one year was barred by limitation. The other view held that the refund right accrued on export under Notification No. 17/2009-ST, that the original filings substantially complied with the scheme, and that limitation ran from the original filing date. The matter was left unresolved on difference of opinion and placed before the President for further action. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 10 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793419