Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The case involves a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) seeking a refund of excess duty paid along with interest. The EOU had deposited an additional amount of duty as per the department's demand, which was later found to be incorrect. The EOU had not challenged the assessment order before any Appellate Authority. The Tribunal held that provisions of refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act are only executionary and cannot modify assessment orders. Citing the case of ITC Ltd, the Tribunal emphasized that appellate proceedings should have been pursued to challenge the assessment orders. Referring to the case of Mafatlal Industries, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that assessment/adjudication made under the Act cannot be ignored based on later legal interpretations.
The case involves a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) seeking a refund of excess duty paid along with interest. The EOU had deposited an additional amount of duty as per the department's demand, which was later found to be incorrect. The EOU had not challenged the assessment order before any Appellate Authority. The Tribunal held that provisions of refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act and Section 11B of the Central Excise Act are only executionary and cannot modify assessment orders. Citing the case of ITC Ltd, the Tribunal emphasized that appellate proceedings should have been pursued to challenge the assessment orders. Referring to the case of Mafatlal Industries, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that assessment/adjudication made under the Act cannot be ignored based on later legal interpretations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
