Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2021, directing refund of the contested CENVAT credit with consequential relief. The Tribunal held the refund claim was filed within the one-year limitation because duty was paid under protest and the relevant date is the Tribunal order; accordingly the one-year bar under Section 11B did not apply. The Tribunal further found Section 142(3) and 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act adequately govern cash refunds during transition to GST, and rejection on grounds of time-bar and unjust enrichment lacked merit. The Revenue's disallowance of Rs.11,98,234/- was therefore quashed and refund sanctioned as per law.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 31.12.2021, directing refund of the contested CENVAT credit with consequential relief. The Tribunal held the refund claim was filed within the one-year limitation because duty was paid under protest and the relevant date is the Tribunal order; accordingly the one-year bar under Section 11B did not apply. The Tribunal further found Section 142(3) and 142(9)(b) of the CGST Act adequately govern cash refunds during transition to GST, and rejection on grounds of time-bar and unjust enrichment lacked merit. The Revenue's disallowance of Rs.11,98,234/- was therefore quashed and refund sanctioned as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
