Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
