Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
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 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
