https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420535 A rebate claim was held maintainable where the Revenue had earlier accepted the same alternate-notification treatment on identical facts, and it could not take a contrary stand for a later period. The claim was also found to be within limitation because it was filed within one year from the end of the relevant quarter, so the time-bar objection failed. Denial on the alleged absence of nexus between input services and exported output services was likewise rejected on the facts, as the services had been accepted in similar matters. The rejection of the rebate claims was therefore set aside, with consequential relief to the assessee. en-us Fri, 01 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Apr 2022 16:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420535 A rebate claim was held maintainable where the Revenue had earlier accepted the same alternate-notification treatment on identical facts, and it could not take a contrary stand for a later period. The claim was also found to be within limitation because it was filed within one year from the end of the relevant quarter, so the time-bar objection failed. Denial on the alleged absence of nexus between input services and exported output services was likewise rejected on the facts, as the services had been accepted in similar matters. The rejection of the rebate claims was therefore set aside, with consequential relief to the assessee. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 01 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420535