Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The case involves a dispute over the refund of Additional Duties of Customs (CVD) paid on re-import of goods u/s 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal, following a precedent set by a larger bench, held that it has jurisdiction to decide appeals related to refunds u/s 142(3). The appellant paid CVD post-GST introduction and sought credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner denied the refund citing Section 140(5) and deemed Section 142(3) inapplicable. The Tribunal found grounds to grant the refund, deeming the impugned order unsustainable. The appeal was allowed.
The case involves a dispute over the refund of Additional Duties of Customs (CVD) paid on re-import of goods u/s 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal, following a precedent set by a larger bench, held that it has jurisdiction to decide appeals related to refunds u/s 142(3). The appellant paid CVD post-GST introduction and sought credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner denied the refund citing Section 140(5) and deemed Section 142(3) inapplicable. The Tribunal found grounds to grant the refund, deeming the impugned order unsustainable. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
