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...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
