Search Results for "refund claim date"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Case — Death Not Arising O...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitioner's Challenge to Arbitral Award in Commerci...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Attachment of Property in NSEL Scam C...
Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Customs Classification Dispute — Bulk Pet F...

Search Results for "refund claim date"

1348 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1348 result(s)

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Refund of Premium for Unutilized FSI in Land Development Case — Absence of Express Refund Provision Does Not Bar Refund When Privilege Not Availed. Appellants paid ₹30,46,290/- as premium for additional FSI but abandoned construction; Court held that retention of premium without utilization is unjust enrichment and directed refund with interest.

1 Jan 2026

The appellants, Prasad Pandurang Tapkir and Shakuntala Pandurang Tapkir, owned agricultural land in Survey No. 103/2/2 of Alandi Taluka, Pune District...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Revenue's Appeal in Central Excise Refund Recovery Case - Clarifies No Separate Section 11A Notice Required When Refund Order Reviewed Under Section 35E. Recovery of erroneous refund granted through speaking order reviewed under Section 35E of Central Excise Act, 1944 does not require separate show cause notice under Section 11A, as Sections 35E and 11A operate in different fields with different purposes and time limits.

24 Mar 2023

The dispute originated from the respondent company's manufacture of cotton yarn consumed captively in its composite mills for weaving fabric. Followin...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Financier's Appeal in U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act Case, Upholding Tax Liability for Financier-in-Possession. Financier Qualifies as 'Owner' Under Section 2(h) and Must Pay Tax in Advance Under Section 4, with Refund Available Under Section 12 for Non-Use, Irrespective of Actual Use or Registration Status.

22 Feb 2022

The appeal arose from a judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench Lucknow, which dismissed a writ petition filed ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Central Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is distinct from that of the manufacturer, and the benefit of the second proviso (duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The Court held that the buyer's refund claim is time-barred as it was filed beyond six months from the date of purchase, and the manufacturer's protest does not extend the limitation for the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B(1) Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) is distinct from the manufacturer's right, and the benefit of the second proviso (waiver of limitation for duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central exci...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is distinct from that of the manufacturer, and the benefit of the second proviso (duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Customs Interest Refund Case — Interest Under Section 27A Payable from Date of Payment of Duty. The court held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, and interest is payable from the date of payment of duty.

13 Aug 2015

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) d...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Rejection of TDS Refund Under Section 264 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee Failed to Establish That Payments to Foreign Collaborator Were Not Royalty Under Section 9(1)(vi) Read with DTAA.

28 Oct 2005

The petitioners, M/s BASF (India) Limited and Mr. P.A. Ramasamy, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 28th February 2001 passed by the Co...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Petition of Manufacturer for Refund of Octroi Duty on Imported Chemical Intermediate. Sulphonic Acid, a Raw Material for Detergents, Not Covered Under Entry 18 of Schedule H to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 as It Is Not a Substance Used in Washing.

25 Feb 2005

The petitioner, Hindustan Lever Limited, a manufacturer of soaps and detergents, imported Sulphonic Acid, a toxic chemical intermediate used as raw ma...

3 4 5 6 7

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)