Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4800
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96000 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Recovery of erroneous refund - amount paid by the appellant’s Chennai Unit towards the pre-deposit in connection with an appeal filed arising out of order in Tuticorin Central Excise Division with a different Registration Number - The Appellate Tribunal finds that the payment made by the appellant towards pre-deposit for filing the appeal should indeed be considered a pre-deposit and not an excess payment of duty. This conclusion is supported by legal precedents and the purpose for which the payment was made. The Tribunal agrees with the appellant's argument that since the payment was made as a pre-deposit under Section 35F, the provisions of Section 11B regarding limitation should not apply. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the company the refund of the pre-deposit amount.
Recovery of erroneous refund - amount paid by the appellant’s Chennai Unit towards the pre-deposit in connection with an appeal filed arising out of order in Tuticorin Central Excise Division with a different Registration Number - The Appellate Tribunal finds that the payment made by the appellant towards pre-deposit for filing the appeal should indeed be considered a pre-deposit and not an excess payment of duty. This conclusion is supported by legal precedents and the purpose for which the payment was made. The Tribunal agrees with the appellant's argument that since the payment was made as a pre-deposit under Section 35F, the provisions of Section 11B regarding limitation should not apply. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the company the refund of the pre-deposit amount.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
