Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Permissibility of refund claims and the applicability of the unjust enrichment doctrine. The judicial view emphasizes the principles of economic and distributive justice, equity, and good conscience, as enshrined in the Constitution's Preamble and Directive Principles. The Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. clarifies that seeking a refund is not a matter of right, and a specific procedure must be followed. In the present case, the appellant did not follow the prescribed procedure, and the adjudicating authority invoked Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the order, dismissing the appeal and ruling that the refund claim is not maintainable in light of the Mafatlal decision, which upholds the unjust enrichment doctrine.
Permissibility of refund claims and the applicability of the unjust enrichment doctrine. The judicial view emphasizes the principles of economic and distributive justice, equity, and good conscience, as enshrined in the Constitution's Preamble and Directive Principles. The Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. clarifies that seeking a refund is not a matter of right, and a specific procedure must be followed. In the present case, the appellant did not follow the prescribed procedure, and the adjudicating authority invoked Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the order, dismissing the appeal and ruling that the refund claim is not maintainable in light of the Mafatlal decision, which upholds the unjust enrichment doctrine.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
