Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
