https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345415 The tribunal upheld the decision to reject the refund claim for service tax on input services used in export, citing that the services were not specified under the relevant notification at the time of the claim, thus rendering them ineligible. The tribunal emphasized that retroactive effect cannot be granted to a notification unless explicitly mentioned. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the refund claim based on the interpretation of the notification and the lack of eligibility for services not covered under it. Compliance with notification requirements for refund claims in indirect tax matters was underscored. en-us Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Sep 2017 13:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345415 The tribunal upheld the decision to reject the refund claim for service tax on input services used in export, citing that the services were not specified under the relevant notification at the time of the claim, thus rendering them ineligible. The tribunal emphasized that retroactive effect cannot be granted to a notification unless explicitly mentioned. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the refund claim based on the interpretation of the notification and the lack of eligibility for services not covered under it. Compliance with notification requirements for refund claims in indirect tax matters was underscored. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345415