Human-probability test defeats political donation deductions where banking records mask accommodation-entry fund layering rather than genuine contribu...
Electronic evidence and search statements in tax assessments require authenticity review and corroboration, while procedural manuals lack statutory fo...
Tariff rate quota authorisations govern preferential imports of specified New Zealand goods through export certification and electronic customs debiti...
Electronic Continuity Bond Registration replaces manual container permissions, with quarterly reporting and re-export monitoring for duty-free contain...
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 4920 
