Tax deduction compliance and payee income recognition govern consultancy disallowance, while no exempt income prevents related expenditure disallowanc...
Derivative abetment liability fails when correctly declared imported components establish no underlying improper importation by the principal importer...
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 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
