https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751784 CESTAT Mumbai dismissed the appeal challenging refund denial of CENVAT credit on legal services. The appellant/service exporter claimed refund but invoices improperly described input services, with G.A.R.-7 Challan showing payments under Business Auxiliary Services, Cab Operators Services, and Sponsorship Services instead of legal services. CESTAT held that under Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, refund sanctioning authority has discretion to deny credit when service descriptions are inadequately reflected in duty paying documents. The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) properly exercised judicial discretion in refusing refund due to improper invoice descriptions. en-us Tue, 23 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Apr 2024 07:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751784 CESTAT Mumbai dismissed the appeal challenging refund denial of CENVAT credit on legal services. The appellant/service exporter claimed refund but invoices improperly described input services, with G.A.R.-7 Challan showing payments under Business Auxiliary Services, Cab Operators Services, and Sponsorship Services instead of legal services. CESTAT held that under Rule 9 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, refund sanctioning authority has discretion to deny credit when service descriptions are inadequately reflected in duty paying documents. The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) properly exercised judicial discretion in refusing refund due to improper invoice descriptions. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 23 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751784