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...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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.