https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342205 Refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules were treated as inadmissible on technical grounds despite no dispute that the services were exported and the claim was eligible in principle. The rejection was based on missing agreements, incomplete invoice particulars, and alleged lack of correlation between input services and foreign exchange realisation, but the record showed that export of taxable services and entitlement to refund had already been accepted, with prior refund on similar facts. The focus was therefore verification and quantification rather than denial of substantive entitlement. The rejection was held unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for fresh examination of the refund claims after considering the documents and giving the appellant an adequate opportunity. en-us Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:15:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342205 Refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules were treated as inadmissible on technical grounds despite no dispute that the services were exported and the claim was eligible in principle. The rejection was based on missing agreements, incomplete invoice particulars, and alleged lack of correlation between input services and foreign exchange realisation, but the record showed that export of taxable services and entitlement to refund had already been accepted, with prior refund on similar facts. The focus was therefore verification and quantification rather than denial of substantive entitlement. The rejection was held unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for fresh examination of the refund claims after considering the documents and giving the appellant an adequate opportunity. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342205