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 involves a refund claim filed by the appellant u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, following an appellate tribunal's order. The deposits made were not voluntary but under compulsion from departmental officers. The appellant contested the demand successfully, leading to the deposits being considered as made under protest. Legal precedent supports refund in such cases. A circular mandates refund within 15 days of a favorable appellate decision. The rejection of the refund claim lacked reasonable grounds. The appeal was allowed by CESTAT Allahabad.
The case involves a refund claim filed by the appellant u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, following an appellate tribunal's order. The deposits made were not voluntary but under compulsion from departmental officers. The appellant contested the demand successfully, leading to the deposits being considered as made under protest. Legal precedent supports refund in such cases. A circular mandates refund within 15 days of a favorable appellate decision. The rejection of the refund claim lacked reasonable grounds. The appeal was allowed by CESTAT Allahabad.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
