https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327199 The appellant, a service provider registered with Software Technology Park of India, filed refund claims for unutilized service tax paid on input services used for export services. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected some claims based on various grounds. The appellant argued that Rule 5 of CCR 2004 does not impose such conditions and that Section 11B does not apply to refund accumulated Cenvat credit. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order on all issues, including the eligibility of input services and registration requirements for claiming Cenvat credit. en-us Thu, 07 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Nov 2016 16:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327199 The appellant, a service provider registered with Software Technology Park of India, filed refund claims for unutilized service tax paid on input services used for export services. The adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) rejected some claims based on various grounds. The appellant argued that Rule 5 of CCR 2004 does not impose such conditions and that Section 11B does not apply to refund accumulated Cenvat credit. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order on all issues, including the eligibility of input services and registration requirements for claiming Cenvat credit. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 07 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327199