Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
The case before CESTAT Bangalore involved a refund claim seeking the benefit of a Notification under the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. The issue was whether the benefit of the Notification, not claimed earlier, was available to the appellant upon later claim after duty payment. The Tribunal held that since the goods were imported from Sri Lanka and the appellant provided the country-of-origin certificate, the benefit of the Notification should not be denied solely for not claiming it at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. The claim for reassessment/refund was filed within the prescribed time limit as per relevant Circular. Citing the decision in Hero Cycles vs. UOI, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the benefit of the Notification and any consequential relief as per law.
The case before CESTAT Bangalore involved a refund claim seeking the benefit of a Notification under the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. The issue was whether the benefit of the Notification, not claimed earlier, was available to the appellant upon later claim after duty payment. The Tribunal held that since the goods were imported from Sri Lanka and the appellant provided the country-of-origin certificate, the benefit of the Notification should not be denied solely for not claiming it at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. The claim for reassessment/refund was filed within the prescribed time limit as per relevant Circular. Citing the decision in Hero Cycles vs. UOI, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the benefit of the Notification and any consequential relief as per law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
