https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410719 Refund under Notification No. 27/2012-CE read with Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 could not be denied merely because the CENVAT account was debited after filing the claim, since the delay was treated as procedural and the substantive refund entitlement remained intact. Event Management Service was also treated as an input service because it was used in the course of business within Rule 2(l), so refund on that component was allowable. On that basis, rejection of the refund claim was set aside and consequential relief followed. en-us Fri, 06 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Jan 2022 13:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410719 Refund under Notification No. 27/2012-CE read with Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 could not be denied merely because the CENVAT account was debited after filing the claim, since the delay was treated as procedural and the substantive refund entitlement remained intact. Event Management Service was also treated as an input service because it was used in the course of business within Rule 2(l), so refund on that component was allowable. On that basis, rejection of the refund claim was set aside and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 06 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410719