Benami transaction and beneficial ownership: documentary and circumstantial evidence show payors were true beneficiaries, resulting in PBPTA consequen...
Denial of Preferential Treatment under SAFTA overturned where unchallenged Country of Origin certificate warranted exemption under Notification benefi...
Continuing offence of money-laundering: discharge set aside and proceedings reinstated where laundering continued after inclusion of predicate offence...
Section 142(3) of the CGST Act does not create a fresh refund right where the underlying CENVAT credit entitlement had already expired under the six-month limit from the duty-paying document. The Tribunal held that credit on the challan dated 09.05.2019 could be taken only until 09.11.2019, so a later transitional refund claim was time-barred. The COVID limitation extension could not revive a claim that had already lapsed before the pandemic period. It also held that excess payment against the bill of entry was customs duty, so any refund had to be claimed under Section 27 of the Customs Act; reliance on the EODC was misplaced.
Section 142(3) of the CGST Act does not create a fresh refund right where the underlying CENVAT credit entitlement had already expired under the six-month limit from the duty-paying document. The Tribunal held that credit on the challan dated 09.05.2019 could be taken only until 09.11.2019, so a later transitional refund claim was time-barred. The COVID limitation extension could not revive a claim that had already lapsed before the pandemic period. It also held that excess payment against the bill of entry was customs duty, so any refund had to be claimed under Section 27 of the Customs Act; reliance on the EODC was misplaced.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
