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 involved CENVAT credit on CVD and SAD components under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund as they could not avail of the credit due to filing limitations. The appellant contested a previous court decision, stating it was not applicable to their case. The tribunal also ruled that cash refund of CVD/SAD was permissible u/s 142(3) of the CGST Act, citing a previous case. The Doctrine of Necessity was applied, allowing the refund due to non-availability of credit under GST regime. The appellant was granted the refund u/s 142(3) and (6) of the GST Act, setting aside the previous order.
The case involved CENVAT credit on CVD and SAD components under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund as they could not avail of the credit due to filing limitations. The appellant contested a previous court decision, stating it was not applicable to their case. The tribunal also ruled that cash refund of CVD/SAD was permissible u/s 142(3) of the CGST Act, citing a previous case. The Doctrine of Necessity was applied, allowing the refund due to non-availability of credit under GST regime. The appellant was granted the refund u/s 142(3) and (6) of the GST Act, setting aside the previous order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
