Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
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 
