https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458512 The appellant successfully contested the denial of a Service Tax refund on 'Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service' and legal services under the reverse charge mechanism. The judge ruled that the refund was warranted for taxes paid before the GST regime, as the Service Tax was admissible as Cenvat credit. The Lower Authorities' reliance on Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, was deemed incorrect, as it pertains to tax recovery, not Cenvat credit. The decision was set aside, and the case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further examination of input service admissibility and related issues. en-us Wed, 07 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2024 07:35:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458512 The appellant successfully contested the denial of a Service Tax refund on 'Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service' and legal services under the reverse charge mechanism. The judge ruled that the refund was warranted for taxes paid before the GST regime, as the Service Tax was admissible as Cenvat credit. The Lower Authorities' reliance on Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, 2017, was deemed incorrect, as it pertains to tax recovery, not Cenvat credit. The decision was set aside, and the case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further examination of input service admissibility and related issues. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458512