Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
