https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267090 The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed as the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Appeal allowing refunds to the respondent. The Ld. Commissioner interpreted condition 3(e) of Notification No. 40/12-ST to calculate the one-year period for filing refund claims from the actual payment of service tax to the service provider, not from the advance payment date. Detailed examination confirmed the refund claims were filed within the stipulated timeframe, supported by evidence such as invoices, vouchers, and bank statements. The validity of the refund claims based on the actual service tax payment dates was affirmed, leading to the dismissal of Revenue's appeals. en-us Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 May 2016 14:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267090 The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed as the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Appeal allowing refunds to the respondent. The Ld. Commissioner interpreted condition 3(e) of Notification No. 40/12-ST to calculate the one-year period for filing refund claims from the actual payment of service tax to the service provider, not from the advance payment date. Detailed examination confirmed the refund claims were filed within the stipulated timeframe, supported by evidence such as invoices, vouchers, and bank statements. The validity of the refund claims based on the actual service tax payment dates was affirmed, leading to the dismissal of Revenue's appeals. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 16 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267090