https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762004 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding jurisdiction for service tax refund claims under Section 103 of Finance Act 1994. The appellant service receiver filed refund claim with Mumbai Service Tax authority where they were registered, but Deputy Commissioner returned the application citing jurisdictional issues. The tribunal resolved a difference of opinion between Technical and Judicial members, holding that Section 103 constitutes a complete code without mandating specific jurisdictional filing requirements. The non-obstante clause nullifies service tax charges retrospectively, and appellants correctly filed with their own jurisdictional officer where they filed returns. The refund claim was within the six-month timeframe and no multiple jurisdiction filing occurred. en-us Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Nov 2024 18:01:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762004 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding jurisdiction for service tax refund claims under Section 103 of Finance Act 1994. The appellant service receiver filed refund claim with Mumbai Service Tax authority where they were registered, but Deputy Commissioner returned the application citing jurisdictional issues. The tribunal resolved a difference of opinion between Technical and Judicial members, holding that Section 103 constitutes a complete code without mandating specific jurisdictional filing requirements. The non-obstante clause nullifies service tax charges retrospectively, and appellants correctly filed with their own jurisdictional officer where they filed returns. The refund claim was within the six-month timeframe and no multiple jurisdiction filing occurred. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762004