Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Page of 4813
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3301 to 3320 of 96257 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT ALLAHABAD held that refund claim for service tax under section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 was not time-barred as the relevant date for refund claim was the date of Order-In-Original, not payment date. No service tax liability existed, so no short payment occurred. Appellant's deposit remained unappropriated against tax liability. Citing Hon'ble Madras High Court decision, Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the refund claim. Revenue's appeal was dismissed as refund claim was timely filed.
CESTAT ALLAHABAD held that refund claim for service tax under section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 was not time-barred as the relevant date for refund claim was the date of Order-In-Original, not payment date. No service tax liability existed, so no short payment occurred. Appellant's deposit remained unappropriated against tax liability. Citing Hon'ble Madras High Court decision, Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the refund claim. Revenue's appeal was dismissed as refund claim was timely filed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
