Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 95872 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Rejection of refund claim - The Tribunal observed that a pre-notice consultation was issued to the appellant, who responded by paying the demanded duty and interest. As the payment was made in response to the consultation, the court found no grounds for further action by the revenue. - The CESTAT rejected the appellant's argument that they had no further responsibility after making the payment. It held that both the revenue and the appellant are bound by Section 28, and the appellant's acceptance of the proposal in the consultation precluded the need for a show cause notice.
Rejection of refund claim - The Tribunal observed that a pre-notice consultation was issued to the appellant, who responded by paying the demanded duty and interest. As the payment was made in response to the consultation, the court found no grounds for further action by the revenue. - The CESTAT rejected the appellant's argument that they had no further responsibility after making the payment. It held that both the revenue and the appellant are bound by Section 28, and the appellant's acceptance of the proposal in the consultation precluded the need for a show cause notice.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
