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 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant seeking refund of central excise duty u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's claim for refund on the ground of excess duty payment due to wrong valuation of goods was rejected. The CESTAT held that in self-assessment cases, the refund proceedings u/s 11B are executionary and not re-assessment proceedings. The appellant failed to challenge the self-assessment order before the Commissioner (Appeals) or get it modified. Hence, the appellant cannot raise issues regarding the applicability of Sections 4 or 4A for duty assessment in the refund proceedings. The appellant failed to prove entitlement to the refund claimed.
The CESTAT dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant seeking refund of central excise duty u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's claim for refund on the ground of excess duty payment due to wrong valuation of goods was rejected. The CESTAT held that in self-assessment cases, the refund proceedings u/s 11B are executionary and not re-assessment proceedings. The appellant failed to challenge the self-assessment order before the Commissioner (Appeals) or get it modified. Hence, the appellant cannot raise issues regarding the applicability of Sections 4 or 4A for duty assessment in the refund proceedings. The appellant failed to prove entitlement to the refund claimed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
