Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
Public servant status under anti-corruption law extends to recognised stock exchange leadership; constitutional and sanction challenges do not succeed...
Acquiescence, homebuyer protection and clean-slate resolution principles prevent landowners from disrupting an integrated project through late termina...
Refund claim - Reduction in price subsequently resulting in payment of duty in excess - Can refund be claimed without opting of provisional assessment? - Time limitation - Despite clear evidence of overpayment, the refund claim was dismissed solely on the grounds of time bar, as it was filed beyond the one-year limit prescribed by Section 11B of the CEA. The tribunal analyzed the statutory provisions and rejected the appellant's argument that the use of "may" in Section 11B implied discretionary filing within the one-year timeframe. Without precedent supporting the appellant's stance, the tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, affirming the dismissal of the appeal.
Refund claim - Reduction in price subsequently resulting in payment of duty in excess - Can refund be claimed without opting of provisional assessment? - Time limitation - Despite clear evidence of overpayment, the refund claim was dismissed solely on the grounds of time bar, as it was filed beyond the one-year limit prescribed by Section 11B of the CEA. The tribunal analyzed the statutory provisions and rejected the appellant's argument that the use of "may" in Section 11B implied discretionary filing within the one-year timeframe. Without precedent supporting the appellant's stance, the tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, affirming the dismissal of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
