Pre-amendment reassessment limitation bars late notices under the preserved regime, invalidating consequential reassessment for affected earlier asses...
Cash-sales explanations for bank deposits require documentary reconciliation; reassessment notice survived where effective response time was available...
Functional comparability in transfer pricing prevents ad hoc arm's length adjustments where functions, assets, risks and reliable comparables are unes...
Contingency expenses, exempt-income disallowance, and royalty benchmarking: unsupported adjustments were deleted under consistent accounting and trans...
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 4918 
