Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1161 to 1180 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" ?
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.