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...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 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 dismissal of the refund claim filed by the appellant, holding it barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Customs Act. The tribunal affirmed that the manufacturing process in question, involving cutting and sawing granite slabs, differed materially from processes previously classified under Chapter Heading 25, with the finished goods here falling under Chapter Heading 68. Since the assessments were final and unchallenged, the appellant could not rely on classification disputes from other cases to justify refunds. The tribunal also relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that refund claims must comply with statutory limitation periods and that refunds cannot be granted merely due to a subsequent divergent judicial view in unrelated cases. Consequently, the refund application filed in 2008 for duties paid between 2004-2006 was time-barred, and the appeal was dismissed.
The CESTAT upheld the dismissal of the refund claim filed by the appellant, holding it barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Customs Act. The tribunal affirmed that the manufacturing process in question, involving cutting and sawing granite slabs, differed materially from processes previously classified under Chapter Heading 25, with the finished goods here falling under Chapter Heading 68. Since the assessments were final and unchallenged, the appellant could not rely on classification disputes from other cases to justify refunds. The tribunal also relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that refund claims must comply with statutory limitation periods and that refunds cannot be granted merely due to a subsequent divergent judicial view in unrelated cases. Consequently, the refund application filed in 2008 for duties paid between 2004-2006 was time-barred, and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
