Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 of 95715 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 pertains to the refund of service tax paid on input services utilized for the export of 'Cut and Polished Diamonds' during October 2015 to March 2016, as per Notification No. 41/2002-S.T. dated 29.06.2012. The appellants had claimed the refund, which was initially sanctioned by the original authority after verifying compliance with the notification's conditions. However, the issue arose regarding the address mentioned on the invoices not matching the registered address of the appellants. The Tribunal held that to claim the refund, the appellants only needed to be registered as exporters with the Export Promotion Council and with the jurisdictional Service Tax authorities, which they had complied with. Furthermore, they had duly applied for and obtained a change of address in their ST-2 Certificate. Relying on the Madras High Court judgment in Commissioner of Service Tax-III vs. Scioinspire Consulting Services, the Tribunal ruled that the right to refund cannot be denied solely due to a mismatch in the registered address. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order denying the refund of input service tax paid on the exported goods and allowed the appeal.
The case pertains to the refund of service tax paid on input services utilized for the export of 'Cut and Polished Diamonds' during October 2015 to March 2016, as per Notification No. 41/2002-S.T. dated 29.06.2012. The appellants had claimed the refund, which was initially sanctioned by the original authority after verifying compliance with the notification's conditions. However, the issue arose regarding the address mentioned on the invoices not matching the registered address of the appellants. The Tribunal held that to claim the refund, the appellants only needed to be registered as exporters with the Export Promotion Council and with the jurisdictional Service Tax authorities, which they had complied with. Furthermore, they had duly applied for and obtained a change of address in their ST-2 Certificate. Relying on the Madras High Court judgment in Commissioner of Service Tax-III vs. Scioinspire Consulting Services, the Tribunal ruled that the right to refund cannot be denied solely due to a mismatch in the registered address. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order denying the refund of input service tax paid on the exported goods and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
