Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The summary focuses on the refund claim rejection based on the ground that the amount paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) is not admissible u/r 9(1)(bb) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and was hence ineligible for transition as input tax credit u/s 142(8)(a) of CGST Act. It highlights that Rule 9(1)(e), not Rule 9(1)(bb), is applicable for RCM payments, and credit cannot be denied, citing the POLYGENTA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. case. Regarding transition of credit, it states that u/ss 142 and 140 of the CGST Act, the appellant was eligible for TRAN-1 credit, and the rejection citing non-declaration in Service Tax returns was hyper-technical. Section 142(8)(b) mandates refunding eligible credit in cash. The Adfert Technologies case upheld transitional credit as a vested right. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The summary focuses on the refund claim rejection based on the ground that the amount paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) is not admissible u/r 9(1)(bb) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and was hence ineligible for transition as input tax credit u/s 142(8)(a) of CGST Act. It highlights that Rule 9(1)(e), not Rule 9(1)(bb), is applicable for RCM payments, and credit cannot be denied, citing the POLYGENTA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. case. Regarding transition of credit, it states that u/ss 142 and 140 of the CGST Act, the appellant was eligible for TRAN-1 credit, and the rejection citing non-declaration in Service Tax returns was hyper-technical. Section 142(8)(b) mandates refunding eligible credit in cash. The Adfert Technologies case upheld transitional credit as a vested right. Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
