https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760471 CESTAT Allahabad dismissed appellant's appeal for refund of service tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism. The tribunal held that appellant lacked substantive right to claim refund under existing law, having failed to properly claim CENVAT Credit as per established procedure. Following Jharkhand HC precedent in Rungta Mines, the tribunal found appellant wrongly claimed amount as input service credit in ST-3 return instead of following proper CENVAT procedures. Appellant's reliance on Bombay HC decisions in Combitic Global and Simbhaoli Sugar was distinguished as those cases involved post-June 2017 amounts, making them inapplicable to pre-GST regime obligations. en-us Tue, 15 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Oct 2024 11:10:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760471 CESTAT Allahabad dismissed appellant's appeal for refund of service tax paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism. The tribunal held that appellant lacked substantive right to claim refund under existing law, having failed to properly claim CENVAT Credit as per established procedure. Following Jharkhand HC precedent in Rungta Mines, the tribunal found appellant wrongly claimed amount as input service credit in ST-3 return instead of following proper CENVAT procedures. Appellant's reliance on Bombay HC decisions in Combitic Global and Simbhaoli Sugar was distinguished as those cases involved post-June 2017 amounts, making them inapplicable to pre-GST regime obligations. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 15 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760471