Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
181 to 200 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC allowed petitioner's rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, despite procedural error in filing Form Annexure-19 with ARE-1 documents on 16.06.2014. Petitioner mistakenly submitted rebate documents through wrong format but within limitation period. Respondents denied claim solely on procedural grounds while acknowledging petitioner's entitlement to rebate for duty-free exports. Court held that mere procedural oversight cannot defeat substantive claim when all requisite documents were submitted timely. Following precedent in Apar Industries case, HC ruled defective applications should be treated as continuous rebate attempts relating back to original filing date. Respondents directed to process rebate claim within twelve weeks. Petition allowed.
HC allowed petitioner's rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, despite procedural error in filing Form Annexure-19 with ARE-1 documents on 16.06.2014. Petitioner mistakenly submitted rebate documents through wrong format but within limitation period. Respondents denied claim solely on procedural grounds while acknowledging petitioner's entitlement to rebate for duty-free exports. Court held that mere procedural oversight cannot defeat substantive claim when all requisite documents were submitted timely. Following precedent in Apar Industries case, HC ruled defective applications should be treated as continuous rebate attempts relating back to original filing date. Respondents directed to process rebate claim within twelve weeks. Petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.