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...
The CESTAT Allahabad Appellate Tribunal ruled in a case involving the demand of service tax for services rendered by a non-resident from a country outside India related to the issuance of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB) falling under banking and financial services. The appellant had paid the service tax under protest and deposited the amount demanded during the investigation. The tribunal held that the demand of service tax against the appellant was dropped, entitling them to a refund of the amount paid along with interest. The appellant had taken CENVAT credit of the amount deposited and distributed it to their manufacturing units as they were registered as an input service distributor. The tribunal found no reason to disallow the distribution of the credit, as the service tax was deemed not payable. The tribunal also noted that the show cause notice and impugned order did not cite any legal provisions for the recovery of CENVAT credit, rendering the recovery order invalid.
The CESTAT Allahabad Appellate Tribunal ruled in a case involving the demand of service tax for services rendered by a non-resident from a country outside India related to the issuance of Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB) falling under banking and financial services. The appellant had paid the service tax under protest and deposited the amount demanded during the investigation. The tribunal held that the demand of service tax against the appellant was dropped, entitling them to a refund of the amount paid along with interest. The appellant had taken CENVAT credit of the amount deposited and distributed it to their manufacturing units as they were registered as an input service distributor. The tribunal found no reason to disallow the distribution of the credit, as the service tax was deemed not payable. The tribunal also noted that the show cause notice and impugned order did not cite any legal provisions for the recovery of CENVAT credit, rendering the recovery order invalid.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
