Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95833 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 the adjustment of short-payment of tax with excess payment of service tax on services exported overseas. The appellant sought to adjust an inadmissible credit against the excess service tax paid, but the tribunal held that such adjustment was not permissible as it did not relate to subsequent service tax liabilities. The recovery of the erroneously availed credit was found to be applicable only after the insertion of a recovery provision in the relevant rule. The tribunal also ruled that the invocation of an extended period of limitation by the Department was not justified as they were aware of the issue well within the normal limitation period. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by the CESTAT.
The case involves the adjustment of short-payment of tax with excess payment of service tax on services exported overseas. The appellant sought to adjust an inadmissible credit against the excess service tax paid, but the tribunal held that such adjustment was not permissible as it did not relate to subsequent service tax liabilities. The recovery of the erroneously availed credit was found to be applicable only after the insertion of a recovery provision in the relevant rule. The tribunal also ruled that the invocation of an extended period of limitation by the Department was not justified as they were aware of the issue well within the normal limitation period. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed by the CESTAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
