Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Excess duty paid due to issuance of credit notes to dealers and stockists after clearance of goods was rejected on grounds of incidence being passed on and lack of evidence that it was not passed on to ultimate customers. Principles of unjust enrichment u/s 11B read with Section 12B of Central Excise Act were examined. Appellants failed to establish non-passing of excess duty to customers. Merely selling on MRP basis did not absolve them. Supreme Court's Addison and Co. Ltd. judgment applied, entitling refund on merits but not on unjust enrichment grounds. Section 12B's applicability was upheld based on CEGAT and Supreme Court judgments like Grasim Industries, Sangam Processors. Appellants hit by Section 12B for failure to prove non-passing of excess duty. Refund eligible on merits but cannot be disbursed; to be dealt with u/s 12D. Commissioner's non-entitlement on merits unsustainable, but order sustainable on unjust enrichment applicability.
Excess duty paid due to issuance of credit notes to dealers and stockists after clearance of goods was rejected on grounds of incidence being passed on and lack of evidence that it was not passed on to ultimate customers. Principles of unjust enrichment u/s 11B read with Section 12B of Central Excise Act were examined. Appellants failed to establish non-passing of excess duty to customers. Merely selling on MRP basis did not absolve them. Supreme Court's Addison and Co. Ltd. judgment applied, entitling refund on merits but not on unjust enrichment grounds. Section 12B's applicability was upheld based on CEGAT and Supreme Court judgments like Grasim Industries, Sangam Processors. Appellants hit by Section 12B for failure to prove non-passing of excess duty. Refund eligible on merits but cannot be disbursed; to be dealt with u/s 12D. Commissioner's non-entitlement on merits unsustainable, but order sustainable on unjust enrichment applicability.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.