https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289978 Refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 could not be rejected merely because no bill was raised in the third quarter, where the dispute concerned whether a single invoice covered export services spread over the second and third quarters of FY 2016-17. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had asserted quarter-wise attribution of the invoice value and that this factual claim required verification from the record. The rejection was therefore set aside and the matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for limited examination of the invoice and export turnover. If the bill is found to relate to both quarters, the refund is to be allowed with interest as per rules. en-us Wed, 26 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Sep 2020 00:23:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289978 Refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 could not be rejected merely because no bill was raised in the third quarter, where the dispute concerned whether a single invoice covered export services spread over the second and third quarters of FY 2016-17. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had asserted quarter-wise attribution of the invoice value and that this factual claim required verification from the record. The rejection was therefore set aside and the matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for limited examination of the invoice and export turnover. If the bill is found to relate to both quarters, the refund is to be allowed with interest as per rules. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 26 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289978