https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349105 The appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing bulk drugs, filed a refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax. The Commissioner (A) partially allowed the claim but rejected significant portions related to inputs, input services, and ISD credit. The appellant's arguments, supported by case laws, demonstrated the essential nature of the rejected services for manufacturing. The judgment remanded the case for a fresh order, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination by the original authority. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, highlighting the importance of considering all submissions and verifying documents. en-us Thu, 11 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Oct 2017 08:55:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349105 The appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing bulk drugs, filed a refund claim for unutilized CENVAT credit of service tax. The Commissioner (A) partially allowed the claim but rejected significant portions related to inputs, input services, and ISD credit. The appellant's arguments, supported by case laws, demonstrated the essential nature of the rejected services for manufacturing. The judgment remanded the case for a fresh order, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination by the original authority. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, highlighting the importance of considering all submissions and verifying documents. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 11 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349105