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...
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.