https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350347 The appellant, a 100% EOU, had their refund claim for CENVAT credit on various input services rejected. The appellate authority partially allowed the claim but rejected it for services not proven to be used for export and for filing beyond the limitation period. The court, citing legal precedents, emphasized that a claim filed within one year of realization should be accepted. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, underscoring the importance of complying with statutory provisions and legal precedents in refund claims for 100% EOUs. en-us Mon, 18 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Nov 2017 08:34:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350347 The appellant, a 100% EOU, had their refund claim for CENVAT credit on various input services rejected. The appellate authority partially allowed the claim but rejected it for services not proven to be used for export and for filing beyond the limitation period. The court, citing legal precedents, emphasized that a claim filed within one year of realization should be accepted. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, underscoring the importance of complying with statutory provisions and legal precedents in refund claims for 100% EOUs. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 18 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350347