Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 95957 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 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
