Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The CESTAT upheld the Commissioner's order denying the appellant's refund claim for duty paid on UF/PF resin used captively, affirming the application of the principle of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedents establishing that in cases of captive consumption, the burden lies on the claimant to prove non-transfer of duty. The refund amount of Rs. 51,33,004.71, though acknowledged as paid, is required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 12C of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the revenue's entitlement to recover the erroneously sanctioned refund and directing appropriate legal action.
The CESTAT upheld the Commissioner's order denying the appellant's refund claim for duty paid on UF/PF resin used captively, affirming the application of the principle of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedents establishing that in cases of captive consumption, the burden lies on the claimant to prove non-transfer of duty. The refund amount of Rs. 51,33,004.71, though acknowledged as paid, is required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 12C of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the revenue's entitlement to recover the erroneously sanctioned refund and directing appropriate legal action.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
