https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342027 Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on eligible input services could not be denied merely because the credit related to an earlier period, as the cited circular and retrospective amendment supported refund irrespective of when the credit was taken. Credit of service tax paid under reverse charge was also held not to be barred under Rule 9(1)(bb) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, because that restriction applies only where tax is paid pursuant to a notice alleging fraud, suppression of facts, or wilful misstatement, and no such notice had been issued. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s limited remand for verification and refund was upheld as legally sustainable. en-us Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342027 Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on eligible input services could not be denied merely because the credit related to an earlier period, as the cited circular and retrospective amendment supported refund irrespective of when the credit was taken. Credit of service tax paid under reverse charge was also held not to be barred under Rule 9(1)(bb) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, because that restriction applies only where tax is paid pursuant to a notice alleging fraud, suppression of facts, or wilful misstatement, and no such notice had been issued. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s limited remand for verification and refund was upheld as legally sustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342027