Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The appellant's Daman unit mistakenly paid duty liability of their Halol unit due to an error in the ERP system meant for all group units. The issue pertains to determining the date for computing the one-year time limit u/s 11B for filing a refund application - whether it should be the initial filing date or the subsequent re-filing date after the department returned the initial application. The Tribunal held that since the appellant initially filed the refund claim within one year, the date of first filing should be considered, rendering the refund application not time-barred. Relying on the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Auro Pumps Private Ltd, the Tribunal ruled that the duty paid in excess is refundable. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s power to remand matters based on amendments to the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The appellant's Daman unit mistakenly paid duty liability of their Halol unit due to an error in the ERP system meant for all group units. The issue pertains to determining the date for computing the one-year time limit u/s 11B for filing a refund application - whether it should be the initial filing date or the subsequent re-filing date after the department returned the initial application. The Tribunal held that since the appellant initially filed the refund claim within one year, the date of first filing should be considered, rendering the refund application not time-barred. Relying on the Gujarat High Court's judgment in Auro Pumps Private Ltd, the Tribunal ruled that the duty paid in excess is refundable. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with the Tribunal affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s power to remand matters based on amendments to the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
