Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Page of 4793
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 95847 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the appellants did not render intermediary services for their foreign principal. The services provided by the appellants were classified as export of services, making them eligible for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit. However, the matter was remanded to the original authority to calculate the eligible refund amount based on actual foreign remittances received during the respective quarters, as the appellants failed to submit certain Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs). The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) held that the appellants did not render intermediary services for their foreign principal. The services provided by the appellants were classified as export of services, making them eligible for refund of unutilized CENVAT credit. However, the matter was remanded to the original authority to calculate the eligible refund amount based on actual foreign remittances received during the respective quarters, as the appellants failed to submit certain Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs). The appeals were disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4793
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
