Trademark depreciation and section 14A adjustments: ITAT applies consistency, independent book-profit computation, and no disallowance without exempt ...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
4641 to 4660 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed appellant's refund claim for EC and SHEC paid during July 2004 to December 2013, overruling time limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal determined that amount was paid under mistake of law, rendering statutory one-year limitation period inapplicable. Relying on precedential rulings from jurisdictional HC, the Tribunal held that refund claim cannot be dismissed as time-barred when payment was made erroneously. The impugned order was set aside, effectively granting the appellant's refund petition.
CESTAT allowed appellant's refund claim for EC and SHEC paid during July 2004 to December 2013, overruling time limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal determined that amount was paid under mistake of law, rendering statutory one-year limitation period inapplicable. Relying on precedential rulings from jurisdictional HC, the Tribunal held that refund claim cannot be dismissed as time-barred when payment was made erroneously. The impugned order was set aside, effectively granting the appellant's refund petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
