https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346455 The appeal was allowed by the Member (Judicial) as the rejection of the refund claim for construction/repair and maintenance service was deemed incorrect. The Member highlighted that the service fell under the category of setting up factory premises, constituting an admissible input service. Procedural violations were noted, including the absence of a show-cause notice on the admissibility issue and the application of an amended definition of input service retroactively. The decision was overturned, emphasizing the appellants' eligibility for the refund based on the nature of the service and principles of natural justice. en-us Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 12:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346455 The appeal was allowed by the Member (Judicial) as the rejection of the refund claim for construction/repair and maintenance service was deemed incorrect. The Member highlighted that the service fell under the category of setting up factory premises, constituting an admissible input service. Procedural violations were noted, including the absence of a show-cause notice on the admissibility issue and the application of an amended definition of input service retroactively. The decision was overturned, emphasizing the appellants' eligibility for the refund based on the nature of the service and principles of natural justice. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346455