Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The CESTAT held that the amounts deposited by the appellant on the direction of departmental officers for detected shortages cannot be considered voluntary deposits. As the appellant contested the demand and succeeded in getting it set aside, the amounts paid were under protest and not voluntary. The deposits did not acquire the character of duty until clearance from the premises. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 concerning limitation for refund of duty is not applicable to refund of such deposits paid under protest during an ongoing dispute. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is also inapplicable. The refund claim was allowed as there were no reasonable grounds for rejection.
The CESTAT held that the amounts deposited by the appellant on the direction of departmental officers for detected shortages cannot be considered voluntary deposits. As the appellant contested the demand and succeeded in getting it set aside, the amounts paid were under protest and not voluntary. The deposits did not acquire the character of duty until clearance from the premises. Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 concerning limitation for refund of duty is not applicable to refund of such deposits paid under protest during an ongoing dispute. The doctrine of unjust enrichment is also inapplicable. The refund claim was allowed as there were no reasonable grounds for rejection.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
