Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding the appellant entitled to refund of unutilised CENVAT credit paid on input services used for export of services. The Tribunal accepted proof of export and inward remittances and applied Board guidance that one-to-one correlation between export invoices and FIRCs is not requisite for refund. It further rejected denial based on asserted lack of nexus between input and output services, finding such a ground insufficient to withhold refund where credit availing is otherwise not impeached. The Tribunal also held the relevant date for limitation may be the quarter-end when FIRCs are received for quarterly refund filings, negating delay objections.
The CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding the appellant entitled to refund of unutilised CENVAT credit paid on input services used for export of services. The Tribunal accepted proof of export and inward remittances and applied Board guidance that one-to-one correlation between export invoices and FIRCs is not requisite for refund. It further rejected denial based on asserted lack of nexus between input and output services, finding such a ground insufficient to withhold refund where credit availing is otherwise not impeached. The Tribunal also held the relevant date for limitation may be the quarter-end when FIRCs are received for quarterly refund filings, negating delay objections.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.