https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428957 Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit could not be denied on the basis that the services were taxable in India under rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, because the record contained no finding that goods had been supplied to the appellant for rendering the service. In the absence of those foundational facts, rule 4 was inapplicable and rule 3 governed the place of provision. The absence of any demand on the alleged taxable service also made denial of refund as a non-export unsustainable, and the scope of the show cause notice could not be enlarged. The refund claim was therefore directed to be reconsidered by the original authority. en-us Tue, 04 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Oct 2022 09:09:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428957 Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit could not be denied on the basis that the services were taxable in India under rule 4 of the Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012, because the record contained no finding that goods had been supplied to the appellant for rendering the service. In the absence of those foundational facts, rule 4 was inapplicable and rule 3 governed the place of provision. The absence of any demand on the alleged taxable service also made denial of refund as a non-export unsustainable, and the scope of the show cause notice could not be enlarged. The refund claim was therefore directed to be reconsidered by the original authority. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 04 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428957