PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order...
Appellant allowed to claim Notification No.20/2007-CE refunds despite inadvertent filing under Notification No.56/2003-CE as revenue did not dispute eligibility
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order confirming a demand for an alleged erroneous refund. The Tribunal held that the appellant had complied with all substantive conditions of Notification No.20/2007-CE throughout the relevant period and that revenue did not dispute such eligibility; the filing of claims under Notification No.56/2003-CE was a mere inadvertent error. Refunds subsequently sanctioned under Notification No.20/2007-CE showed no infirmity in the sanctioning officer's orders. In the absence of any challenge to the original refund orders and applying established judicial principle that an appellant is not estopped from later claiming the correct exemption, the demand was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order confirming a demand for an alleged erroneous refund. The Tribunal held that the appellant had complied with all substantive conditions of Notification No.20/2007-CE throughout the relevant period and that revenue did not dispute such eligibility; the filing of claims under Notification No.56/2003-CE was a mere inadvertent error. Refunds subsequently sanctioned under Notification No.20/2007-CE showed no infirmity in the sanctioning officer's orders. In the absence of any challenge to the original refund orders and applying established judicial principle that an appellant is not estopped from later claiming the correct exemption, the demand was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.