Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4401 to 4420 of 96556 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
