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 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.