https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344105 The appeal was partly allowed in a case concerning refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants succeeded in obtaining input service credits for Commercial Training or Coaching and Telecommunication services. However, their claims for Renting of Immovable Property and Management Consultancy services were denied. The judgment highlighted that the appellants mistakenly paid service tax for renting immovable property, leading to the rejection of that claim. Overall, the decision was based on a detailed examination of each disputed input service, resulting in a partial success for the appellants. en-us Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Nov 2017 12:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344105 The appeal was partly allowed in a case concerning refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants succeeded in obtaining input service credits for Commercial Training or Coaching and Telecommunication services. However, their claims for Renting of Immovable Property and Management Consultancy services were denied. The judgment highlighted that the appellants mistakenly paid service tax for renting immovable property, leading to the rejection of that claim. Overall, the decision was based on a detailed examination of each disputed input service, resulting in a partial success for the appellants. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 13 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344105