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...
The appellants claimed that the entire amount of service tax paid by them should be considered as a deposit u/s 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and sought a refund. However, the refund arose only after a de novo order dropped the duty amount of Rs.12,99,411/-. According to Section 11B Clause (ec), the relevant date for filing a refund claim is the date of the judgment, decree, order, or direction of the appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal, or court. The appellant should have filed a refund claim by 20.03.2021, but they filed it u/s 35FF on 07.05.2021, which was received by the Revenue on 15.06.2021. Therefore, the claim is barred by limitation u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly held that only the pre-deposit amount of 7.5% of Rs.16,97,430/- is eligible for refund. Regarding the notice before rejecting the refund claim, the appellant made submissions during the personal hearing on 18.08.2021, which were considered in the order. There was no violation of natural justice principles.
The appellants claimed that the entire amount of service tax paid by them should be considered as a deposit u/s 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and sought a refund. However, the refund arose only after a de novo order dropped the duty amount of Rs.12,99,411/-. According to Section 11B Clause (ec), the relevant date for filing a refund claim is the date of the judgment, decree, order, or direction of the appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal, or court. The appellant should have filed a refund claim by 20.03.2021, but they filed it u/s 35FF on 07.05.2021, which was received by the Revenue on 15.06.2021. Therefore, the claim is barred by limitation u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly held that only the pre-deposit amount of 7.5% of Rs.16,97,430/- is eligible for refund. Regarding the notice before rejecting the refund claim, the appellant made submissions during the personal hearing on 18.08.2021, which were considered in the order. There was no violation of natural justice principles.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
