Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
The case involves a dispute over a refund claim (of Cenvat Credit) filed by the appellant beyond the time limit. The Assistant Commissioner stated that the refund was sanctioned earlier, but the appellant did not utilize the remedy u/s 35 of the Central Excise Act within the stipulated time. The communication from the Assistant Commissioner was deemed appealable based on precedent. The appellant's refund claim was filed before the introduction of GST, and the order allowing the refund implied it should be in cash. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deeming the appeal non-maintainable, and the jurisdictional authorities were directed to implement the refund order in cash u/s 142(3) and 142(6) of the CGST Act. The appeal was allowed.
The case involves a dispute over a refund claim (of Cenvat Credit) filed by the appellant beyond the time limit. The Assistant Commissioner stated that the refund was sanctioned earlier, but the appellant did not utilize the remedy u/s 35 of the Central Excise Act within the stipulated time. The communication from the Assistant Commissioner was deemed appealable based on precedent. The appellant's refund claim was filed before the introduction of GST, and the order allowing the refund implied it should be in cash. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deeming the appeal non-maintainable, and the jurisdictional authorities were directed to implement the refund order in cash u/s 142(3) and 142(6) of the CGST Act. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
