Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
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 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
