https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783705 Refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notif. No. 5/2006-CE (NT) was sought for accumulated CENVAT credit for export of services. The Tribunal held that refund proceedings are executionary and cannot be used to deny credit by re-opening self-assessment; unless the assessment is first challenged and modified by a competent authority, refund cannot be rejected on that basis, particularly where no proceedings under Rule 14 CCR were initiated, and the position was revenue-neutral (credit would otherwise re-credit to the CENVAT account). The Tribunal further held that refund is not inadmissible merely because tax was paid later. The service was held classifiable as Legal Consultancy Service, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 07:49:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783705 Refund under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004 read with Notif. No. 5/2006-CE (NT) was sought for accumulated CENVAT credit for export of services. The Tribunal held that refund proceedings are executionary and cannot be used to deny credit by re-opening self-assessment; unless the assessment is first challenged and modified by a competent authority, refund cannot be rejected on that basis, particularly where no proceedings under Rule 14 CCR were initiated, and the position was revenue-neutral (credit would otherwise re-credit to the CENVAT account). The Tribunal further held that refund is not inadmissible merely because tax was paid later. The service was held classifiable as Legal Consultancy Service, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783705