https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370575 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, rejecting the revenue's stance on the rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. It held that the appellant's exported services did not fall under exempted services, as alleged by the revenue, and dismissed the requirement for separate accounts for cenvat credit. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized that failure to file refund claims on a quarterly basis did not justify rejection, citing flexibility in the filing frequency allowed by the relevant notification. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant. en-us Wed, 31 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:46:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370575 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, rejecting the revenue's stance on the rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. It held that the appellant's exported services did not fall under exempted services, as alleged by the revenue, and dismissed the requirement for separate accounts for cenvat credit. Additionally, the Tribunal emphasized that failure to file refund claims on a quarterly basis did not justify rejection, citing flexibility in the filing frequency allowed by the relevant notification. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 31 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370575