Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
International transaction benchmarking restricts transfer pricing adjustments to associated-enterprise dealings, while functional comparability govern...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 95715 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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
