Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
The case involved a dispute regarding the refund of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism under the erstwhile law. The issue was the applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The tribunal held that Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 allows refund claims under the previous laws to be processed as per existing laws. The appellant's right to refund under the erstwhile legislation was upheld, citing a precedent that transitional credit is a vested right. The rejection of the refund claim was deemed legally invalid, and the impugned order was set aside with the appeal allowed.
The case involved a dispute regarding the refund of service tax paid under reverse charge mechanism under the erstwhile law. The issue was the applicability of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The tribunal held that Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 allows refund claims under the previous laws to be processed as per existing laws. The appellant's right to refund under the erstwhile legislation was upheld, citing a precedent that transitional credit is a vested right. The rejection of the refund claim was deemed legally invalid, and the impugned order was set aside with the appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
