Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The appellant sought refund of Countervailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid in cash u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 142(3) and 142(6)(A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. They argued that since they paid the duty after GST introduction and were eligible for credit of CVD and SAD, they were entitled to refund. The Tribunal held that Section 142 allows refund in cash only when refunds are admissible under existing law but cannot be refunded in credit. The existing law, i.e., Central Excise Act and Rules, provides for cash refund of credit taken by the assessee under limited provisions like Rules 5, 5A, and 5B of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, which do not cover the appellant's case. Therefore, Section 142 does not entitle them to cash refund. Further, Section 142(6) covers refund in cash when refund or credit admissibility is in dispute before judicial forums, which is not the case here. The refund in cash u/s 142(3) is admissible only if refund is otherwise admissible in cash under existing law, which is not the case. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.
The appellant sought refund of Countervailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid in cash u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 142(3) and 142(6)(A) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. They argued that since they paid the duty after GST introduction and were eligible for credit of CVD and SAD, they were entitled to refund. The Tribunal held that Section 142 allows refund in cash only when refunds are admissible under existing law but cannot be refunded in credit. The existing law, i.e., Central Excise Act and Rules, provides for cash refund of credit taken by the assessee under limited provisions like Rules 5, 5A, and 5B of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, which do not cover the appellant's case. Therefore, Section 142 does not entitle them to cash refund. Further, Section 142(6) covers refund in cash when refund or credit admissibility is in dispute before judicial forums, which is not the case here. The refund in cash u/s 142(3) is admissible only if refund is otherwise admissible in cash under existing law, which is not the case. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.