TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Functional comparability governs software-service benchmarking: dissimilar companies are excluded, while related-party filters, margins and working-ca...
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, and held that the appellant is entitled to a cash refund of Cenvat credit for CVD and SAD paid post-GST regime on imports made prior to 01.07.2017. The tribunal clarified that Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, a transitional provision, permits refund where Cenvat credit could not be availed due to the supersession of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by the GST regime. The principle against unjust enrichment did not apply as the appellant bore the incidence of duty. The department's contention that the appellant could not claim credit under the new rules was rejected, given the payments related to pre-GST imports and the refund claim was valid. The decision aligns with prior tribunal rulings confirming that differential duty paid post-GST on pre-GST imports qualifies for refund under the statutory framework.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, and held that the appellant is entitled to a cash refund of Cenvat credit for CVD and SAD paid post-GST regime on imports made prior to 01.07.2017. The tribunal clarified that Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, a transitional provision, permits refund where Cenvat credit could not be availed due to the supersession of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by the GST regime. The principle against unjust enrichment did not apply as the appellant bore the incidence of duty. The department's contention that the appellant could not claim credit under the new rules was rejected, given the payments related to pre-GST imports and the refund claim was valid. The decision aligns with prior tribunal rulings confirming that differential duty paid post-GST on pre-GST imports qualifies for refund under the statutory framework.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
