Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The CESTAT upheld the denial of interest on the refund of wrongly availed Cenvat credit relating to gases used in repair and maintenance during 2003-06. The amounts deposited pursuant to show cause notices were held not to be payments under protest or mandatory pre-deposits under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act but rather appropriations of inadmissible credits. Consequently, these sums did not qualify as Revenue Deposits, rendering Sections 11B and 35FF inapplicable. Since the amounts were not collected in excess of duty, only Section 11BB governed the matter. The appellant was therefore not entitled to interest on the refund, and the appeal was dismissed.
The CESTAT upheld the denial of interest on the refund of wrongly availed Cenvat credit relating to gases used in repair and maintenance during 2003-06. The amounts deposited pursuant to show cause notices were held not to be payments under protest or mandatory pre-deposits under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act but rather appropriations of inadmissible credits. Consequently, these sums did not qualify as Revenue Deposits, rendering Sections 11B and 35FF inapplicable. Since the amounts were not collected in excess of duty, only Section 11BB governed the matter. The appellant was therefore not entitled to interest on the refund, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
