https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353268 Refund claims on disputed banking services were not finally decided because the core questions of leviability and the scope of the exemption notifications were already pending before the Supreme Court in connected matters. CESTAT held it was inappropriate to determine the refund dispute at that stage and directed that the adjudicating authority take a fresh decision after the outcome of the pending proceedings. The substantive tax controversy was therefore left open, with the appeals remitted for reconsideration in light of the higher court's ruling. en-us Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jan 2018 06:00:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353268 Refund claims on disputed banking services were not finally decided because the core questions of leviability and the scope of the exemption notifications were already pending before the Supreme Court in connected matters. CESTAT held it was inappropriate to determine the refund dispute at that stage and directed that the adjudicating authority take a fresh decision after the outcome of the pending proceedings. The substantive tax controversy was therefore left open, with the appeals remitted for reconsideration in light of the higher court's ruling. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353268