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...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
81 to 100 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT held that the amount paid by the appellant during investigation, prior to issuance of any SCN, was a mere revenue deposit and not duty under a valid demand. As all proposed demands were subsequently set aside, the amount remained the appellant's property and could not be retained by the Revenue without authority of law, consistent with Art. 300A of the Constitution. CESTAT further held that Ss. 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act were inapplicable to such deposits. The appellant is therefore entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the date of initial deposit until the date of actual refund. Relying on prior precedent, CESTAT fixed the rate of interest at 12% per annum. The appeal was allowed, affirming the appellant's right to interest at 12% on the refunded investigation deposit for the entire intervening period.
CESTAT held that the amount paid by the appellant during investigation, prior to issuance of any SCN, was a mere revenue deposit and not duty under a valid demand. As all proposed demands were subsequently set aside, the amount remained the appellant's property and could not be retained by the Revenue without authority of law, consistent with Art. 300A of the Constitution. CESTAT further held that Ss. 11B and 11BB of the Central Excise Act were inapplicable to such deposits. The appellant is therefore entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the date of initial deposit until the date of actual refund. Relying on prior precedent, CESTAT fixed the rate of interest at 12% per annum. The appeal was allowed, affirming the appellant's right to interest at 12% on the refunded investigation deposit for the entire intervening period.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
