Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
Specified regulatory authority income receives conditional tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income character, and return f...
Tax exemption for regulatory authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-filing...
Input tax credit conditions remain constitutionally valid, with eligible recipient claims considered under GST circulars and retrospective filing dead...
Page of 4790
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
481 to 500 of 95794 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Appellant's refund claim for differential duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE was rejected due to failure to produce relevant documents like balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, invoices, and cost data to rule out unjust enrichment. Appellant attempted to introduce new evidence before the Tribunal, which is generally not permitted u/r 23 of the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, unless permitted through a separate application. The new evidence submitted was found irrelevant to the facts of the case. The lower authority's view rejecting the refund claim was reasonable, legal, and proper. The appeal was rejected as the lacunae pointed out by the Original Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) remained unaddressed.
Appellant's refund claim for differential duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE was rejected due to failure to produce relevant documents like balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, invoices, and cost data to rule out unjust enrichment. Appellant attempted to introduce new evidence before the Tribunal, which is generally not permitted u/r 23 of the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, unless permitted through a separate application. The new evidence submitted was found irrelevant to the facts of the case. The lower authority's view rejecting the refund claim was reasonable, legal, and proper. The appeal was rejected as the lacunae pointed out by the Original Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) remained unaddressed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
