Classification of imported salvaged shaft pieces as ship parts confirmed, reassessment time-barred and appeal allowed restoring original classificatio...
Scope of intermediary status for data hosting services: tribunal finds provider not intermediary, services exported and not taxable, limited remand on...
CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
