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...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, ruling that amounts deposited by the appellant during investigation, which were appropriated toward service tax demand, should be treated as service tax payment rather than pre-deposit. Following the Tribunal's earlier decision setting aside the demand, these amounts became refundable under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act (as applicable to service tax via Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994). The Tribunal directed that interest should be calculated under Section 11BB rather than Section 35FF, with the relevant date for interest calculation being the date of the Tribunal's order setting aside the demand. No new refund application was required as the appellant's letter already constituted a valid application.
The CESTAT set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, ruling that amounts deposited by the appellant during investigation, which were appropriated toward service tax demand, should be treated as service tax payment rather than pre-deposit. Following the Tribunal's earlier decision setting aside the demand, these amounts became refundable under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act (as applicable to service tax via Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994). The Tribunal directed that interest should be calculated under Section 11BB rather than Section 35FF, with the relevant date for interest calculation being the date of the Tribunal's order setting aside the demand. No new refund application was required as the appellant's letter already constituted a valid application.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.