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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 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 4827 
Join Channel 
