Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellants were held eligible for refund of Cenvat credit u/s 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal ruled that Section 142(8)(a) was wrongly invoked to reject the refund claim, as it pertains only to input tax credit and not Cenvat credit for the pre-GST period. Payment u/s 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 did not impact admissibility of the Cenvat credit. Rule 9(1)(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was inapplicable in this reverse charge scenario without any show cause notice or adjudication order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
The appellants were held eligible for refund of Cenvat credit u/s 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Tribunal ruled that Section 142(8)(a) was wrongly invoked to reject the refund claim, as it pertains only to input tax credit and not Cenvat credit for the pre-GST period. Payment u/s 73(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 did not impact admissibility of the Cenvat credit. Rule 9(1)(bb) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was inapplicable in this reverse charge scenario without any show cause notice or adjudication order. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
