<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (8) TMI 569 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776382</link>
    <description>The CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, overturning the rejection of refund claims for accumulated Cenvat Credit. The department did not dispute the initial availing of credit under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, nor issued any show cause notices challenging it. The appellants&#039; output services were substantially exported, and since export services are exempt from service tax, the accumulated credit could not be utilized. The Revenue did not contend non-compliance with the refund formula under Rule 5. The denial of refund on the ground of lack of nexus between input and output services was held unsustainable, consistent with CBEC circulars stating nexus need not be established for refund on export of output services. The impugned order rejecting the refund was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Aug 2025 08:48:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=842031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (8) TMI 569 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776382</link>
      <description>The CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal, overturning the rejection of refund claims for accumulated Cenvat Credit. The department did not dispute the initial availing of credit under Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, nor issued any show cause notices challenging it. The appellants&#039; output services were substantially exported, and since export services are exempt from service tax, the accumulated credit could not be utilized. The Revenue did not contend non-compliance with the refund formula under Rule 5. The denial of refund on the ground of lack of nexus between input and output services was held unsustainable, consistent with CBEC circulars stating nexus need not be established for refund on export of output services. The impugned order rejecting the refund was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776382</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>