Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The appellant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited 'under protest' during the pendency of adjudication proceedings and investigation, as it cannot be considered payment of duty and is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The deposit made from April 2016 to June 2017, when no show cause notice was issued, was merely a precautionary measure and cannot be characterized as 'duty'. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that such deposits are not subject to unjust enrichment principles and allowed the refund claim, setting aside the impugned orders.
The appellant is entitled to refund of the amount deposited 'under protest' during the pendency of adjudication proceedings and investigation, as it cannot be considered payment of duty and is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The deposit made from April 2016 to June 2017, when no show cause notice was issued, was merely a precautionary measure and cannot be characterized as 'duty'. Relying on judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that such deposits are not subject to unjust enrichment principles and allowed the refund claim, setting aside the impugned orders.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
