https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768855 The appellant successfully challenged the denial of service tax rebate for July-September 2007. The HC ruled that the claim was not time-barred, following precedent in Commissioner of S.T., Bengaluru-I vs. Span Infotech. The court accepted that consolidated filing for multiple premises was permissible given the appellant's single registration, consistent with previous tribunal decisions in M/s. Biocon Ltd. The court found sufficient nexus between input services and exported services, rejecting procedural objections. Additionally, the appellant was entitled to interest under Section 11BB of the Excise Act as per the SC ruling in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. en-us Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2025 08:35:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768855 The appellant successfully challenged the denial of service tax rebate for July-September 2007. The HC ruled that the claim was not time-barred, following precedent in Commissioner of S.T., Bengaluru-I vs. Span Infotech. The court accepted that consolidated filing for multiple premises was permissible given the appellant's single registration, consistent with previous tribunal decisions in M/s. Biocon Ltd. The court found sufficient nexus between input services and exported services, rejecting procedural objections. Additionally, the appellant was entitled to interest under Section 11BB of the Excise Act as per the SC ruling in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 24 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768855