https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753481 CESTAT Allahabad allowed appeal by remand regarding refund claim rejection. Original authority had rejected refund on grounds that services were not covered under default list, invoices addressed outside SEZ premises with incomplete addresses, and invoices not produced before department. Since no order was passed in denovo proceedings and issue was covered by previous CESTAT decision, matter was remanded to original authority for reconsideration of refund claims for January-March 2012 period, with direction to finalize within three months. en-us Mon, 27 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jun 2024 18:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753481 CESTAT Allahabad allowed appeal by remand regarding refund claim rejection. Original authority had rejected refund on grounds that services were not covered under default list, invoices addressed outside SEZ premises with incomplete addresses, and invoices not produced before department. Since no order was passed in denovo proceedings and issue was covered by previous CESTAT decision, matter was remanded to original authority for reconsideration of refund claims for January-March 2012 period, with direction to finalize within three months. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 27 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753481