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...
Interpretation and applicability of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the recovery of erroneously refunded excise duty. It discusses whether the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in M/s Unicorn Industries, overruling M/s SRD Nutrients, would be applicable in the present case. The Tribunal observed that the Excise Officer had to follow the SRD Nutrients decision at the time of passing the order, and any subsequent change in legal position would not permit invoking Section 11A. The High Court held that the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) vs. M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is squarely applicable, and the appeal was filed despite the governing judgment. Consequently, the High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant for filing the appeal against the settled legal position.
Interpretation and applicability of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the recovery of erroneously refunded excise duty. It discusses whether the subsequent Supreme Court judgment in M/s Unicorn Industries, overruling M/s SRD Nutrients, would be applicable in the present case. The Tribunal observed that the Excise Officer had to follow the SRD Nutrients decision at the time of passing the order, and any subsequent change in legal position would not permit invoking Section 11A. The High Court held that the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (J&K) vs. M/s Saraswati Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is squarely applicable, and the appeal was filed despite the governing judgment. Consequently, the High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant for filing the appeal against the settled legal position.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
