Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Data transmission equipment classification under CTSH 8517 62 remains distinct from residual classification, with exemption evidence requiring scrutin...
CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order, holding that the sums of Rs. 3,83,645 and Rs. 3,94,331 paid by the appellant in relation to seized goods released provisionally were not deposits made under protest but amounts of customs duty, thereby rendering Section 35FF inapplicable. The Tribunal directed refund under Section 27A, awarding interest only from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the refund application until actual disbursement, not from date of payment, because the payments constituted duty. The interest rate was fixed at 6% as constrained by the relevant governmental notification and prior judicial determination; Commissioner (Appeals)'s grant of refund with interest was affirmed.
CESTAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned order, holding that the sums of Rs. 3,83,645 and Rs. 3,94,331 paid by the appellant in relation to seized goods released provisionally were not deposits made under protest but amounts of customs duty, thereby rendering Section 35FF inapplicable. The Tribunal directed refund under Section 27A, awarding interest only from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the refund application until actual disbursement, not from date of payment, because the payments constituted duty. The interest rate was fixed at 6% as constrained by the relevant governmental notification and prior judicial determination; Commissioner (Appeals)'s grant of refund with interest was affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.