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...
CESTAT held that fabrication of transmission towers did not constitute manufacture, making excise duty collection illegal under Article 265. The tribunal rejected the department's time limitation argument u/s 11B of Central Excise Act, ruling that time limits do not apply when tax was not payable. The endorsement "under protest" on gate passes was deemed sufficient despite non-compliance with Rule 233B formalities. The appellant was granted refund with 12% interest per annum from the date of initial refund rejection, as retention of revenue deposit was held unconstitutional. The tribunal emphasized that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive rights when tax is collected without legal authority.
CESTAT held that fabrication of transmission towers did not constitute manufacture, making excise duty collection illegal under Article 265. The tribunal rejected the department's time limitation argument u/s 11B of Central Excise Act, ruling that time limits do not apply when tax was not payable. The endorsement "under protest" on gate passes was deemed sufficient despite non-compliance with Rule 233B formalities. The appellant was granted refund with 12% interest per annum from the date of initial refund rejection, as retention of revenue deposit was held unconstitutional. The tribunal emphasized that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive rights when tax is collected without legal authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
