Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on exported services is not barred merely because credit from an earlier period is claimed in a subsequent quarter. Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) and the Board clarification permit carry-forward, subject to limitation and other claim requirements. For reverse-charge service tax paid belatedly, limitation runs from the actual tax-payment date; a period stated incorrectly in the application may be treated as a clerical error where returns establish the payment date. Both Members agreed that the refund rejection could not stand on those grounds. They differed on whether issues beyond the show cause notice required remand or whether refund with interest should be granted, and referred that question to a Third Member.
Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on exported services is not barred merely because credit from an earlier period is claimed in a subsequent quarter. Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT) and the Board clarification permit carry-forward, subject to limitation and other claim requirements. For reverse-charge service tax paid belatedly, limitation runs from the actual tax-payment date; a period stated incorrectly in the application may be treated as a clerical error where returns establish the payment date. Both Members agreed that the refund rejection could not stand on those grounds. They differed on whether issues beyond the show cause notice required remand or whether refund with interest should be granted, and referred that question to a Third Member.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
