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...
CESTAT ruled against Micromax's refund claims of Rs. 18.38 Cr and Rs. 35.89 Cr for Additional Duty of Customs paid on imported mobile phones. The Tribunal held that re-assessment of Bills of Entry under Sec. 17 was mandatory before filing refund applications, as established in Supreme Court precedents (Priya Blue Industries, Flock India, and ITC). Micromax's attempt to utilize Sec. 149 for amendments was rejected as inappropriate for claiming notification benefits. Additionally, the principle of unjust enrichment applied since the duty burden had been passed to consumers through MRP-based pricing. The Tribunal concluded that having missed prescribed timelines for re-assessment, Micromax was ineligible for the claimed refunds. Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
CESTAT ruled against Micromax's refund claims of Rs. 18.38 Cr and Rs. 35.89 Cr for Additional Duty of Customs paid on imported mobile phones. The Tribunal held that re-assessment of Bills of Entry under Sec. 17 was mandatory before filing refund applications, as established in Supreme Court precedents (Priya Blue Industries, Flock India, and ITC). Micromax's attempt to utilize Sec. 149 for amendments was rejected as inappropriate for claiming notification benefits. Additionally, the principle of unjust enrichment applied since the duty burden had been passed to consumers through MRP-based pricing. The Tribunal concluded that having missed prescribed timelines for re-assessment, Micromax was ineligible for the claimed refunds. Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
