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" ?
CESTAT ALLAHABAD held that refund claim of Special Additional Duty (SAD) was justified as unjust enrichment was not established. The importer provided invoices, VAT Challan, and CA Certificate to support the claim. Original and Appellate Authorities both found no fault in the claim. The principle of not challenging factual findings unless proven perverse was emphasized. Citing a Supreme Court case, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed.
CESTAT ALLAHABAD held that refund claim of Special Additional Duty (SAD) was justified as unjust enrichment was not established. The importer provided invoices, VAT Challan, and CA Certificate to support the claim. Original and Appellate Authorities both found no fault in the claim. The principle of not challenging factual findings unless proven perverse was emphasized. Citing a Supreme Court case, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
