https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345535 The appeal was rejected, and the impugned order upholding the eligibility of services for CENVAT credit was affirmed. The Tribunal determined that the services in question were eligible input services for refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, based on established case law and precedents. Despite the initial rejection of refund claims due to a lack of nexus between input and output services, the Tribunal found in favor of the respondent, emphasizing the eligibility of the services for CENVAT credit, particularly in the context of exporting services. en-us Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:36:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345535 The appeal was rejected, and the impugned order upholding the eligibility of services for CENVAT credit was affirmed. The Tribunal determined that the services in question were eligible input services for refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, based on established case law and precedents. Despite the initial rejection of refund claims due to a lack of nexus between input and output services, the Tribunal found in favor of the respondent, emphasizing the eligibility of the services for CENVAT credit, particularly in the context of exporting services. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345535