Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
