https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353910 The Revenue's appeals against two Order-in-Appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore. The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, which found the rejection of the refund claim unjustified. It was noted that the computer-generated invoice from Standard Chartered Bank did not require a signature, and the evidence of service tax payment was satisfactory. The impugned orders were upheld based on Rule 4(A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The judgment was delivered on 02/08/2017 by Shri M. V. Ravindran, Judicial Member, with representation from the Revenue but none from the respondent. en-us Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353910 The Revenue's appeals against two Order-in-Appeals were dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore. The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, which found the rejection of the refund claim unjustified. It was noted that the computer-generated invoice from Standard Chartered Bank did not require a signature, and the evidence of service tax payment was satisfactory. The impugned orders were upheld based on Rule 4(A) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The judgment was delivered on 02/08/2017 by Shri M. V. Ravindran, Judicial Member, with representation from the Revenue but none from the respondent. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353910