https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339513 Refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules cannot be denied for a mere change in the legal entity's name or invoice mismatch where the entity remains the same and the tax burden has been borne. Alleged export of service, ST-3 and Form A reconciliation differences, and omission of the service provider's registration number were treated as procedural issues that could not defeat the claim when the underlying facts supported entitlement. Car parking and photography services were recognised as input services because they had a demonstrable business nexus. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after considering the documents and cited case law. en-us Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Sep 2017 15:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339513 Refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules cannot be denied for a mere change in the legal entity's name or invoice mismatch where the entity remains the same and the tax burden has been borne. Alleged export of service, ST-3 and Form A reconciliation differences, and omission of the service provider's registration number were treated as procedural issues that could not defeat the claim when the underlying facts supported entitlement. Car parking and photography services were recognised as input services because they had a demonstrable business nexus. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication after considering the documents and cited case law. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 28 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339513