Raja Abhishek For NIRC 2024

@abhishekrajaram

25 days ago

ā€¢View on Twitter

š—–š—˜š—¦š—§š—”š—§ š—”š—²š˜„ š——š—²š—¹š—µš—¶ š—„š˜‚š—¹š—¶š—»š—“ š—¼š—» š—˜š˜…š—²š—ŗš—½š˜š—¶š—¼š—» š—³š—暝—¼š—ŗ š—¦š—²š—暝˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… š—³š—¼š—æ š—šš—§š—” š—¦š—²š—暝˜ƒš—¶š—°š—²š˜€ šŸ“¢ š—§š—µš—² š—§š—暝—¶š—Æš˜‚š—»š—®š—¹ š—µš—²š—¹š—±: "As there was no allegation that the appellant failed to export goods, the conditions for availing the exemption were satisfied. However, penalty is upheld for failure to file returns on time."

šŸ” š—™š—®š—°š˜š˜€: š—–š—¼š—ŗš—½š—®š—»š˜†: HEG Limited š—”š—°š˜š—¶š˜ƒš—¶š˜š˜†: The appellant, a manufacturer of graphite electrodes, claimed exemption under Notification No. 18/2009 and Notification No. 31/2012 for GTA services used in exports. š—œš˜€š˜€š˜‚š—²: Whether the appellant is entitled to exemption for GTA services despite procedural lapses?

āš–ļø š—š˜‚š—±š—“š—²š—ŗš—²š—»š˜: The Tribunal ruled that exemption conditions were met as there were no allegations of export failure or missing documents. The demand for service tax and interest was set aside. However, a penalty under Section 77 for late filing of returns was upheld due to procedural lapses. The appeal was partly allowed.

š—–š—®š˜€š—² š—œš—»š—³š—¼š—暝—ŗš—®š˜š—¶š—¼š—»: š—§š—¶š˜š—¹š—²: HEG Limited vs. Commissioner (Appeals) GST, Customs, and Central Excise, Bhopal š—¦š—²š—暝˜ƒš—¶š—°š—² š—§š—®š˜… š—”š—½š—½š—²š—®š—¹ š—”š—¼. 51779 of 2017 š—¢š—暝—±š—²š—æ š——š—®š˜š—²: 08 May 2023 šŸ“œ This ruling affirms that substantial compliance with exemption conditions is sufficient, while penalties may apply for procedural lapses like delayed filings.

More from @abhishekrajaramReply on Twitter

Page created with TweetHunter

Write your own