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...
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 
