<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2013 (3) TMI 157 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221390</link>
    <description>An appellate authority cannot use remand to reopen an issue already concluded on merits; here, the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked power to remand the matter on the nexus question, and that part of the order was liable to be set aside. The nexus between the exported output service and the input services had already been decided in favour of the claimant for refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, so the Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate could be used only for quantification of the refundable amount and not for reconsidering the settled nexus. The matter was therefore remitted only for limited quantification, leaving the nexus finding undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2013 07:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194745" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 157 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221390</link>
      <description>An appellate authority cannot use remand to reopen an issue already concluded on merits; here, the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked power to remand the matter on the nexus question, and that part of the order was liable to be set aside. The nexus between the exported output service and the input services had already been decided in favour of the claimant for refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, so the Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate could be used only for quantification of the refundable amount and not for reconsidering the settled nexus. The matter was therefore remitted only for limited quantification, leaving the nexus finding undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>