https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260343 The Tribunal set aside the rejection of the rebate claim, allowing the appellant's refund claims for the period April 2012 to June 2012. The rejection was deemed unjustified as the appellant's actions were found to be in compliance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's invoice clearly indicated service tax payment for exported services to Mauritius, debited in the CENVAT credit register. The decision provided consequential relief to the appellant, overturning the previous rejection based on timing discrepancies. en-us Tue, 27 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260343 The Tribunal set aside the rejection of the rebate claim, allowing the appellant's refund claims for the period April 2012 to June 2012. The rejection was deemed unjustified as the appellant's actions were found to be in compliance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's invoice clearly indicated service tax payment for exported services to Mauritius, debited in the CENVAT credit register. The decision provided consequential relief to the appellant, overturning the previous rejection based on timing discrepancies. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 27 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260343