https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254703 The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The refund sanction of &8377;20,23,866/- for the period from January 2010 to June 2011, challenged for recovery, was granted to the appellant. The grounds for rejecting the refund claim, including the lack of ISD registration and nexus between input and output services, were found in favor of the appellant based on previous orders and legal precedents. The Tribunal and High Court's decisions supported the appellant's position, leading to the conclusion that the refund should be granted to prevent further litigation. en-us Fri, 21 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254703 The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The refund sanction of &8377;20,23,866/- for the period from January 2010 to June 2011, challenged for recovery, was granted to the appellant. The grounds for rejecting the refund claim, including the lack of ISD registration and nexus between input and output services, were found in favor of the appellant based on previous orders and legal precedents. The Tribunal and High Court's decisions supported the appellant's position, leading to the conclusion that the refund should be granted to prevent further litigation. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 21 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254703