Tax deduction compliance and payee income recognition govern consultancy disallowance, while no exempt income prevents related expenditure disallowanc...
Derivative abetment liability fails when correctly declared imported components establish no underlying improper importation by the principal importer...
Refund Claim: The appellant had inadvertently paid excess excise duty for the months of February and March 2013 while clearing goods from the factory to institutional buyers. Although new evidence is generally not permitted at the appellate stage, the Tribunal accepted the Chartered Accountant's statement and reconciliation sheet as these were department-prescribed documents for sanctioning refunds. The Tribunal observed that since the buyers had agreed to a pre-determined cum-duty price, the chances of passing on the excess excise duty were remote. Denying substantive benefits on technical grounds needs to be avoided. The Original Authority was directed to reconsider the refund claim after examining all documents submitted by the appellant.
Refund Claim: The appellant had inadvertently paid excess excise duty for the months of February and March 2013 while clearing goods from the factory to institutional buyers. Although new evidence is generally not permitted at the appellate stage, the Tribunal accepted the Chartered Accountant's statement and reconciliation sheet as these were department-prescribed documents for sanctioning refunds. The Tribunal observed that since the buyers had agreed to a pre-determined cum-duty price, the chances of passing on the excess excise duty were remote. Denying substantive benefits on technical grounds needs to be avoided. The Original Authority was directed to reconsider the refund claim after examining all documents submitted by the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
