GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 619 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (11) TMI 619 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Denial of refund claim - Business Auxiliary Services - assessee has failed to produce original GAR and other documents, evidences payments before the adjudicating authority - Held that:- Assessee respondent having contested of none applicability of tax under Business Auxiliary Services, before the tribunal nothing is brought on records that the said order is contested by revenue. - Tribunal categorically held in the favor of the assessee respondent by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellants were appropriated by the lower authorities in the first round of litigation. As regards other points raised by the learned departmental representative that there is a mismatch of chalans produced and PLA. I find that there is no dispute that the entire amount as tax liability has been paid by respondent and having been appropriated by the lower authorities in order in original now department cannot turn around and say, There is no payment of amount in the absence of documents. On such .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l and cross objection both are disposed of by a common order. 3. When the matter was called out, court master produces a letter from the respondent seeking adjournment, on perusal of the records, I find that the issue involved in the Revenue appeal is in a very narrow compass, accordingly rejecting the application for the adjournment of the matter, I take up the appeal for disposal. 4. The relevant facts that arises for consideration are the appellant herein on pursuance of Tribunal order no. A/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nal and allowed the appeal of the respondent. 5. Learned departmental representative while taking me through the entire case records, submits that assessee has failed to produce original GAR and other documents, evidences payments of ₹ 21,02,259/- before the adjudicating authority; that the first appellate authority has erred in holding that the submission of original documents evidence payment as irrelevant; he relies upon the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Pransata Bhattacharj .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version