Appellate jurisdiction over baggage imports is excluded, requiring confiscation challenges involving passenger-carried gold to proceed by statutory re...
Article 227 review permits intervention in arbitration only for manifest, patent inherent jurisdictional defects, not representational authority dispu...
Denial of refund claimed u/s 142(3) of CGST Act for service tax paid under RCM was incorrect. Rule 9(1)(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 applies, not Rule 9(1)(bb), allowing credit. Imposition of equal penalty u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994 was improper as no suppression of facts or intention to evade tax was proved. Appellant was eligible for refund u/s 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 for CENVAT credit paid after GST implementation, though unable to avail TRAN-1 credit due to time lapse. Impugned order rejecting refund claims is set aside, and appeal allowed.
Denial of refund claimed u/s 142(3) of CGST Act for service tax paid under RCM was incorrect. Rule 9(1)(e) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 applies, not Rule 9(1)(bb), allowing credit. Imposition of equal penalty u/s 78 of Finance Act, 1994 was improper as no suppression of facts or intention to evade tax was proved. Appellant was eligible for refund u/s 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 for CENVAT credit paid after GST implementation, though unable to avail TRAN-1 credit due to time lapse. Impugned order rejecting refund claims is set aside, and appeal allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
