Because of this procedural "miss," the Court set aside the original tax demand and sent the whole case back to the SCN stage

CESTAT held that service tax demand cannot be sustained without verifying if the recipient already paid tax under RCM and remanded the matter for fresh verification.

In this case, the existence of undisputed supply invoices and BRCs conclusively established that Holoflex had fulfilled its export obligation. Therefore, denial of benefits solely in the absence of BOEs was held to be unjustified.