https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755534 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting the service tax refund claim to the appellant. It was determined that the appellant, involved in property dealings, bore the service tax component on canceled bookings and filed the refund claim within the one-year limitation period from the cancellation date. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant did not utilize cenvat credit, thus affirming their entitlement to the refund. The decision underscored the importance of the timely filing of claims and the non-availment of cenvat credit in determining refund eligibility. The appellant was awarded consequential relief. en-us Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Jul 2024 12:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755534 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting the service tax refund claim to the appellant. It was determined that the appellant, involved in property dealings, bore the service tax component on canceled bookings and filed the refund claim within the one-year limitation period from the cancellation date. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant did not utilize cenvat credit, thus affirming their entitlement to the refund. The decision underscored the importance of the timely filing of claims and the non-availment of cenvat credit in determining refund eligibility. The appellant was awarded consequential relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755534