https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182699 The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the original authority for reconsideration of the refund claims in light of the observations made in the judgment. The grounds for rejecting the refund, including tax liability of Information Technology Software Service (ITSS), registration requirements, correlation between export invoices and Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC), and discrepancies in Cenvat credit amounts, were deemed insufficient to deny the appellant's eligibility for refund of Cenvat credit under Notification No. 5/2006. en-us Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 May 2016 23:08:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182699 The appellate tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the original authority for reconsideration of the refund claims in light of the observations made in the judgment. The grounds for rejecting the refund, including tax liability of Information Technology Software Service (ITSS), registration requirements, correlation between export invoices and Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC), and discrepancies in Cenvat credit amounts, were deemed insufficient to deny the appellant's eligibility for refund of Cenvat credit under Notification No. 5/2006. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182699