https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417505 The appellant contested the partial rejection of their refund claim under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, seeking a refund of tax paid on 'works contract service'. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order in part and granting relief to the appellant. The rejection of the tax paid on 'works contract service' was overturned as the services were used for maintenance, making them eligible for refund under Rule 5. The absence of specific invoice submission requirements in the relevant notification was highlighted, emphasizing that denial of credit should occur under rule 14 rather than in a refund claim under rule 5 without prior notice. en-us Thu, 23 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Jan 2022 08:45:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417505 The appellant contested the partial rejection of their refund claim under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, seeking a refund of tax paid on 'works contract service'. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order in part and granting relief to the appellant. The rejection of the tax paid on 'works contract service' was overturned as the services were used for maintenance, making them eligible for refund under Rule 5. The absence of specific invoice submission requirements in the relevant notification was highlighted, emphasizing that denial of credit should occur under rule 14 rather than in a refund claim under rule 5 without prior notice. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 23 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417505