https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410056 The Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the refund claimed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, despite the omission of credit in their ST-3 returns. The denial of credit based solely on the non-mention in the returns was deemed unjustified, considering the eligibility for the credit. The procedural lapse was viewed as insufficient to bar the refund entitlement, as the appellants were eligible for the credit on service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism for input services used in exporting services. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellants the refund and consequential reliefs. en-us Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jul 2021 08:58:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410056 The Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the refund claimed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, despite the omission of credit in their ST-3 returns. The denial of credit based solely on the non-mention in the returns was deemed unjustified, considering the eligibility for the credit. The procedural lapse was viewed as insufficient to bar the refund entitlement, as the appellants were eligible for the credit on service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism for input services used in exporting services. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellants the refund and consequential reliefs. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410056