https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751680 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal of a 100% EOU/STPI unit claiming CENVAT credit refund for export services and domestic services. The tribunal held that revenue authorities incorrectly denied refund by disallowing CENVAT credit for allegedly ineligible input services. The proper procedure would have been to confirm demand under Section 73 of Finance Act 1994 and adjust against available refund amounts. The tribunal ruled that non-payment of service tax liability cannot justify denial of CENVAT credit refund under Rule 5, as these operate in separate spheres. Following the larger bench decision in Span Infotech case, time limitation for quarterly refund claims begins from quarter-end when FIRC is received. Since the demand was unsustainable, associated penalty was also set aside. en-us Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Apr 2024 20:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751680 CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal of a 100% EOU/STPI unit claiming CENVAT credit refund for export services and domestic services. The tribunal held that revenue authorities incorrectly denied refund by disallowing CENVAT credit for allegedly ineligible input services. The proper procedure would have been to confirm demand under Section 73 of Finance Act 1994 and adjust against available refund amounts. The tribunal ruled that non-payment of service tax liability cannot justify denial of CENVAT credit refund under Rule 5, as these operate in separate spheres. Following the larger bench decision in Span Infotech case, time limitation for quarterly refund claims begins from quarter-end when FIRC is received. Since the demand was unsustainable, associated penalty was also set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 04 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751680