Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
CESTAT dismissed the appeal by the appellant seeking refund of excess duty paid on clearance, holding the refund claim not maintainable where no appeal challenged the appellant's self-assessment and the appellant failed to rebut unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found documentary proof inadequate to show that central excise burden was not passed on to buyers; disclosed MRPs indicated duties and taxes were included in sale prices and the statutory presumption under sections 12A and 12 that incidence of duty was shifted to purchasers applies. Chartered Accountant certification and authorities relied upon were held distinguishable and insufficient. The appeal therefore lacks merit and is dismissed.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal by the appellant seeking refund of excess duty paid on clearance, holding the refund claim not maintainable where no appeal challenged the appellant's self-assessment and the appellant failed to rebut unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found documentary proof inadequate to show that central excise burden was not passed on to buyers; disclosed MRPs indicated duties and taxes were included in sale prices and the statutory presumption under sections 12A and 12 that incidence of duty was shifted to purchasers applies. Chartered Accountant certification and authorities relied upon were held distinguishable and insufficient. The appeal therefore lacks merit and is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Join Channel 
