Approved gratuity fund provisions remain deductible despite general actual-payment requirements, preventing revision of the allowed gratuity deduction...
Verification of intangible software expenditure and duplicated disallowances requires record-based reassessment before depreciation and income computa...
Cash receipt aggregation requires a single transaction, event or occasion; separate partner capital contributions cannot attract cash-receipt penaltie...
Appellant's refund claims for excess duty paid on CPC exports were rejected by CESTAT. The Shipping Bills had been finally assessed incorporating Cess/Cesses, but refund claims were filed beyond the prescribed timeline under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The appellant neither paid under protest nor appealed the original assessments. CESTAT affirmed that refund claims cannot substitute appeal proceedings, and assessment orders must be challenged through proper appeal channels. The Tribunal rejected appellant's attempt to invoke Sections 149 and 154, finding no clerical/arithmetical errors in the assessment, as the Cess was incorporated through conscious action by both parties. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower authority's order.
Appellant's refund claims for excess duty paid on CPC exports were rejected by CESTAT. The Shipping Bills had been finally assessed incorporating Cess/Cesses, but refund claims were filed beyond the prescribed timeline under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The appellant neither paid under protest nor appealed the original assessments. CESTAT affirmed that refund claims cannot substitute appeal proceedings, and assessment orders must be challenged through proper appeal channels. The Tribunal rejected appellant's attempt to invoke Sections 149 and 154, finding no clerical/arithmetical errors in the assessment, as the Cess was incorporated through conscious action by both parties. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower authority's order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.