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 held that the appellant's refund claims following provisional assessment finalization were barred by unjust enrichment doctrine. While the appellant demonstrated they bore the duty burden and did not pass it to dealers through credit notes and CA certificates, they failed to establish that dealers did not subsequently transfer this burden to ultimate motorcycle consumers. Following Addison & Co. Ltd., there exists a presumption that duty incidence passes to buyers, and refunds are permissible only to those who ultimately bear the burden. The Original Authority's verification was inadequate as it only examined the first stage of transactions. Appeals were allowed by remand for proper verification of the complete duty burden trail.
CESTAT held that the appellant's refund claims following provisional assessment finalization were barred by unjust enrichment doctrine. While the appellant demonstrated they bore the duty burden and did not pass it to dealers through credit notes and CA certificates, they failed to establish that dealers did not subsequently transfer this burden to ultimate motorcycle consumers. Following Addison & Co. Ltd., there exists a presumption that duty incidence passes to buyers, and refunds are permissible only to those who ultimately bear the burden. The Original Authority's verification was inadequate as it only examined the first stage of transactions. Appeals were allowed by remand for proper verification of the complete duty burden trail.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.