https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332323 The appeal sought a refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for banking and financial services. The Tribunal upheld that the last date of the quarter in which FIRCs were received should be the relevant date for filing refund claims, rejecting the revenue's argument based on the date of invoice issuance. It was clarified that lack of registration does not hinder the availment of CENVAT credit if duties/taxes liability has been discharged. The Tribunal emphasized that the definition of 'export' under the Export of Service Rules requires performance of services and receiving consideration in convertible foreign currency for tax exemption on exported services. en-us Fri, 15 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332323 The appeal sought a refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 for banking and financial services. The Tribunal upheld that the last date of the quarter in which FIRCs were received should be the relevant date for filing refund claims, rejecting the revenue's argument based on the date of invoice issuance. It was clarified that lack of registration does not hinder the availment of CENVAT credit if duties/taxes liability has been discharged. The Tribunal emphasized that the definition of 'export' under the Export of Service Rules requires performance of services and receiving consideration in convertible foreign currency for tax exemption on exported services. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 15 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332323