https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344057 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim for excess service tax paid. The Tribunal held that the claim was not time-barred, accepted the appellant's compliance with Notification No. 32/2004 ST through rubber stamp declarations, and found no unjust enrichment as the excess tax was not passed on. The decision emphasized the importance of meeting notification requirements, the validity of rubber stamp declarations, and the absence of unjust enrichment in refund claims under the reverse charge mechanism. en-us Thu, 25 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344057 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim for excess service tax paid. The Tribunal held that the claim was not time-barred, accepted the appellant's compliance with Notification No. 32/2004 ST through rubber stamp declarations, and found no unjust enrichment as the excess tax was not passed on. The decision emphasized the importance of meeting notification requirements, the validity of rubber stamp declarations, and the absence of unjust enrichment in refund claims under the reverse charge mechanism. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 25 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344057