https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373019 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to pass an Order-in-Revision after an Order-in-Appeal, setting aside the revision. The Tribunal also ruled that the appropriation of a refund against a confirmed demand was incorrect due to the prior setting aside of the Order-in-Revision. Furthermore, the rejection of certain refund amounts based on time limits and document discrepancies was upheld, in line with legal interpretations. The first appeal was allowed, and the second appeal was partially allowed, ensuring the appellant received the refund amount rightfully due. en-us Wed, 02 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373019 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to pass an Order-in-Revision after an Order-in-Appeal, setting aside the revision. The Tribunal also ruled that the appropriation of a refund against a confirmed demand was incorrect due to the prior setting aside of the Order-in-Revision. Furthermore, the rejection of certain refund amounts based on time limits and document discrepancies was upheld, in line with legal interpretations. The first appeal was allowed, and the second appeal was partially allowed, ensuring the appellant received the refund amount rightfully due. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 02 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373019