1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal grants appeal for refund claim denial, remands for fresh examination and upholds natural justice principles.</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appellants' appeals for denial of their refund claim for excess Service Tax paid on GTA services, remanding the matters to the ... Refund - GTA services - Notification No. 32/2004 - Principal of natural justice - Held that: appellant have brought on record all the declarations before us, the same has been treated part of appeal which needs examination at the end of adjudicating authority - Appeal are allowed by way of remand Issues:Denial of refund claim for excess Service Tax paid on GTA services.Analysis:The appellants filed appeals for denial of their refund claim for excess Service Tax paid on GTA services, along with Misc. applications to submit relevant documents. The Tribunal allowed the Misc. applications as the additional evidence was crucial. The main issue was the denial of the refund claim due to inadvertent payment of Service Tax without claiming abatement, resulting in excess payment. Lower authorities rejected the refund claims citing failure to prove non-passing of duty incidence to transporters and lack of necessary declarations. The appellants argued that they were not given a fair chance to submit all declarations and defend their case before the adjudicating authority and lower appellate authority.The Tribunal noted that the appellants had submitted a sample declaration during adjudication but were not allowed to submit all declarations for verification. It was also observed that the lower appellate authority did not provide a reasonable opportunity for the appellants to present their case. Consequently, the Tribunal found the impugned orders to be in violation of natural justice principles. All declarations were presented before the Tribunal, which considered them as part of the appeal, requiring examination by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh examination of the declarations and to pass an appropriate order after allowing the appellants a fair opportunity to defend their case. The appeals were allowed by way of remand.