https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763145 HC dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding that, under s.142(3) of the CGST Act read with ss.142(5) and 142(8A), the adjudicating authority had jurisdiction to entertain a refund claim for CVD and SAD paid after the appointed day due to non-fulfilment of export obligation under advance authorisation. The Tribunal's conclusion that the claimant was entitled to a refund of central value added tax credit of Rs. 3,28,75,733/- was affirmed as not perverse, and no substantial question of law arose. en-us Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Aug 2025 15:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763145 HC dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding that, under s.142(3) of the CGST Act read with ss.142(5) and 142(8A), the adjudicating authority had jurisdiction to entertain a refund claim for CVD and SAD paid after the appointed day due to non-fulfilment of export obligation under advance authorisation. The Tribunal's conclusion that the claimant was entitled to a refund of central value added tax credit of Rs. 3,28,75,733/- was affirmed as not perverse, and no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws GST Mon, 09 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763145