https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339744 The Member (Judicial) allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the impugned order that disallowed the refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant, a 100% EOU providing ITSS, successfully argued for the refund of various services initially rejected, including renting of immovable property, chartered accountant services, and telecommunication services. The Member emphasized the importance of analyzing the nexus between input and output services for refund claims and considered precedent in favor of the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. en-us Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Mar 2017 13:40:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339744 The Member (Judicial) allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the impugned order that disallowed the refund claim under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant, a 100% EOU providing ITSS, successfully argued for the refund of various services initially rejected, including renting of immovable property, chartered accountant services, and telecommunication services. The Member emphasized the importance of analyzing the nexus between input and output services for refund claims and considered precedent in favor of the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339744