Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not the exporter entitled to refund under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The Tribunal found the shipping bills and contractual documents showed title passed to the trading intermediary, who alone exported the consignments and realised export proceeds; the appellant merely supplied goods and was not the exporter for service-tax rebate purposes. Consequently refunds of service tax paid by the appellant were not allowable under the export-linked notification, and recovery proceedings against previously sanctioned refunds were sustainable. The appellant's invocation of merchant/third-party exporter concepts and EXIM benefits did not confer entitlement to refunds restricted to the actual exporter.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not the exporter entitled to refund under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The Tribunal found the shipping bills and contractual documents showed title passed to the trading intermediary, who alone exported the consignments and realised export proceeds; the appellant merely supplied goods and was not the exporter for service-tax rebate purposes. Consequently refunds of service tax paid by the appellant were not allowable under the export-linked notification, and recovery proceedings against previously sanctioned refunds were sustainable. The appellant's invocation of merchant/third-party exporter concepts and EXIM benefits did not confer entitlement to refunds restricted to the actual exporter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.