https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414522 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the rejection of refund claims based on filing more than 3 months in a single claim application was incorrect. It clarified that registration with the department was not mandatory for claiming refunds and that the absence of periodic ST-3 returns did not automatically lead to rejection unless specific conditions were violated. The Tribunal also held that services exported and used outside India qualified for refunds, emphasizing that a direct nexus between input and output services was not obligatory. Time-barred refund claims were rejected, but the appeals were partially allowed, with the department directed to pay refunds with interest within three months. en-us Wed, 03 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Nov 2021 07:01:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414522 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that the rejection of refund claims based on filing more than 3 months in a single claim application was incorrect. It clarified that registration with the department was not mandatory for claiming refunds and that the absence of periodic ST-3 returns did not automatically lead to rejection unless specific conditions were violated. The Tribunal also held that services exported and used outside India qualified for refunds, emphasizing that a direct nexus between input and output services was not obligatory. Time-barred refund claims were rejected, but the appeals were partially allowed, with the department directed to pay refunds with interest within three months. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 03 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414522