https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434744 Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 could not be denied on the basis of credit ineligibility where the admissibility issue had already been decided in the assessee's favour and no notice under Rule 14 had been issued. The earlier finding had attained finality, so the refund dispute could not reopen it, and the rejection on that ground was unsustainable. Where original invoices were unavailable for reasons not attributable to the claimant, attested copies could be examined as secondary evidence for refund verification, subject to safeguards against duplicate claims. Claims rejected for mismatch of FIRC numbers and for service tax paid under reverse charge were remanded for fresh examination and verification. en-us Tue, 28 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Oct 2023 14:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434744 Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 could not be denied on the basis of credit ineligibility where the admissibility issue had already been decided in the assessee's favour and no notice under Rule 14 had been issued. The earlier finding had attained finality, so the refund dispute could not reopen it, and the rejection on that ground was unsustainable. Where original invoices were unavailable for reasons not attributable to the claimant, attested copies could be examined as secondary evidence for refund verification, subject to safeguards against duplicate claims. Claims rejected for mismatch of FIRC numbers and for service tax paid under reverse charge were remanded for fresh examination and verification. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 28 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434744