https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366652 The Tribunal upheld the appellant's locus standi to file a refund claim, citing legal precedent that any person bearing duty incidence can claim a refund. The rejection based on locus standi was deemed untenable due to inconsistency in similar cases. Regarding the disclaimer certificate, the Tribunal remanded the case for reevaluation by the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the new evidence and ensure the appellant's fair opportunity to present their case. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal precedents and fair hearing principles in tax refund and contractual disputes. en-us Fri, 24 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Sep 2018 17:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366652 The Tribunal upheld the appellant's locus standi to file a refund claim, citing legal precedent that any person bearing duty incidence can claim a refund. The rejection based on locus standi was deemed untenable due to inconsistency in similar cases. Regarding the disclaimer certificate, the Tribunal remanded the case for reevaluation by the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the new evidence and ensure the appellant's fair opportunity to present their case. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal precedents and fair hearing principles in tax refund and contractual disputes. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 24 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366652