https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360359 The appellant challenged the rejection of refund claims totaling Rs. 14,94,636 and Rs. 6,35,422 due to operations at unregistered locations and invoices not in their name. The High Court emphasized the lack of statutory provisions mandating registration for credit eligibility, overturning the denial of refund based on non-existent legal grounds. Additionally, the transfer of business activities from another entity to the appellant supported the invoice discrepancies, leading to the tribunal allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment underscores the importance of legal precedents and factual evidence in refund eligibility for CENVAT credit. en-us Fri, 11 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 May 2018 06:43:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360359 The appellant challenged the rejection of refund claims totaling Rs. 14,94,636 and Rs. 6,35,422 due to operations at unregistered locations and invoices not in their name. The High Court emphasized the lack of statutory provisions mandating registration for credit eligibility, overturning the denial of refund based on non-existent legal grounds. Additionally, the transfer of business activities from another entity to the appellant supported the invoice discrepancies, leading to the tribunal allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment underscores the importance of legal precedents and factual evidence in refund eligibility for CENVAT credit. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 11 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360359