Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Territorial jurisdiction to Grant Refund - The Appellate Tribunal found that the factory of the appellant was situated in Ghaziabad, thus the territorial jurisdiction for the refund claim rested with the Assistant Commissioner in Ghaziabad. The Tribunal emphasized that the clearance of electric meters and payment of Central Excise duty occurred in Ghaziabad Division. Despite an endorsement to Noida authorities, the Tribunal ruled it to be a mistake and stated that jurisdiction should be determined based on the location of the factory and payment of duty. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not raise jurisdictional objections earlier, and therefore, the refund was rightfully sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner in Ghaziabad.
Territorial jurisdiction to Grant Refund - The Appellate Tribunal found that the factory of the appellant was situated in Ghaziabad, thus the territorial jurisdiction for the refund claim rested with the Assistant Commissioner in Ghaziabad. The Tribunal emphasized that the clearance of electric meters and payment of Central Excise duty occurred in Ghaziabad Division. Despite an endorsement to Noida authorities, the Tribunal ruled it to be a mistake and stated that jurisdiction should be determined based on the location of the factory and payment of duty. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not raise jurisdictional objections earlier, and therefore, the refund was rightfully sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner in Ghaziabad.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
