https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766302 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding refund of unutilized accumulated Cenvat credit. The department rejected the refund claim citing ineligible input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 without invoking Rule 14. The Tribunal held that refund under Rule 5 cannot be denied when Rule 14 was not invoked by the department. Following precedents in BNP Paribas and State Street Syntel cases, the Tribunal established that there cannot be different standards for allowing credit versus deciding refunds. Once credit is availed and remains unchallenged, the assessee becomes entitled to refund under Rule 5. The eligibility of input services cannot be questioned during refund processing if not challenged when originally availed. en-us Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Feb 2025 08:30:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766302 CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding refund of unutilized accumulated Cenvat credit. The department rejected the refund claim citing ineligible input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 without invoking Rule 14. The Tribunal held that refund under Rule 5 cannot be denied when Rule 14 was not invoked by the department. Following precedents in BNP Paribas and State Street Syntel cases, the Tribunal established that there cannot be different standards for allowing credit versus deciding refunds. Once credit is availed and remains unchallenged, the assessee becomes entitled to refund under Rule 5. The eligibility of input services cannot be questioned during refund processing if not challenged when originally availed. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 18 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766302