Natural justice in insolvency-professional discipline requires disclosed material; notices based on extraneous material and ignored defences are vitia...
Development rights transfers treated as immovable property, while construction abatement applies and repeated non-payment permits extended service-tax...
The CESTAT held that Section 11B of the CEA, which prescribes the time limit for refund claims, applies solely to excise duty and does not extend to amounts paid without any legal liability. The appellant's payment was made under a mistaken belief of liability, which the Department and Adjudicating Authority conceded was incorrect. The Tribunal reaffirmed that the Department cannot retain funds paid erroneously and that such refund claims are not barred by Section 11B. The impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals), which denied the refund, was found to contravene binding precedents set by the Supreme Court and various High Courts and CESTAT benches. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, directing the refund of the erroneously paid amount to the appellant.
The CESTAT held that Section 11B of the CEA, which prescribes the time limit for refund claims, applies solely to excise duty and does not extend to amounts paid without any legal liability. The appellant's payment was made under a mistaken belief of liability, which the Department and Adjudicating Authority conceded was incorrect. The Tribunal reaffirmed that the Department cannot retain funds paid erroneously and that such refund claims are not barred by Section 11B. The impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals), which denied the refund, was found to contravene binding precedents set by the Supreme Court and various High Courts and CESTAT benches. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, directing the refund of the erroneously paid amount to the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4830 
Join Channel 
