Unlawful outward remittances via Hawala using proforma invoices and electronic records proved; documents admitted, directors penalised, penalties redu...
Attachment of equivalent-value properties as proceeds of crime upheld; preventive attachment order and confirmation sustained; no independent ED reinv...
Page of 4823
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7281 to 7300 of 96456 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4823 
Join Channel 
