https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384836 The Tribunal held that the rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as time-barred was unjustified in the case involving Engineering, Design, and Drawing Services for a foreign entity. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal determined that the relevant date for computing the period in export of services should be the date of realization of foreign exchange. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned orders and providing clarity on the computation of the limitation period for refund claims in export of services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. en-us Wed, 12 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Aug 2019 06:37:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384836 The Tribunal held that the rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as time-barred was unjustified in the case involving Engineering, Design, and Drawing Services for a foreign entity. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal determined that the relevant date for computing the period in export of services should be the date of realization of foreign exchange. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned orders and providing clarity on the computation of the limitation period for refund claims in export of services under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 12 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384836