The application for refund claim in respect of Cess was filed on the ground that the CESS is on Old and Used Motor Vehicle was exempted, the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim on the ground that no evidence, whether the car was old and used, has been furnished by the appellant.
Refund— The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in banking and other financial services filed application for refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 in respect of wrong payment of Cess amounting to Rs. 66,359/- on sale of vehicle.
The application for refund claim in respect of Cess was filed on the ground that the CESS is on Old and Used Motor Vehicle was exempted vide Notification No.01/2018 Compensation Cess dated 25.01.2018.
Held that— In the instant case on perusal of documents submitted by the appellant it is not evident as on which date the supply of car has been affected to the employee. In the absence of the date of supply of car, the benefit of notification can not be extended to the appellant.
The application for refund claim in respect of Cess was filed on the ground that the CESS is on Old and Used Motor Vehicle was exempted, the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim on the ground that no evidence, whether the car was old and used, has been furnished by the appellant.
Refund— The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in banking and other financial services filed application for refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 in respect of wrong payment of Cess amounting to Rs. 66,359/- on sale of vehicle.
The application for refund claim in respect of Cess was filed on the ground that the CESS is on Old and Used Motor Vehicle was exempted vide Notification No.01/2018 Compensation Cess dated 25.01.2018.
Held that— In the instant case on perusal of documents submitted by the appellant it is not evident as on which date the supply of car has been affected to the employee. In the absence of the date of supply of car, the benefit of notification can not be extended to the appellant.