Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Refund of export duty allegedly collected from an SEZ developer despite a court stay is discussed as not being subject to the ordinary limitation period where the claimant first pursued the SEZ authority and then filed before customs as directed. The text states that, following invalidation of the underlying levy, rejection solely as time-barred was unsustainable. It also explains that unjust enrichment did not apply where the SEZ developer was the ultimate buyer, used the steel to establish the SEZ, did not resell it or use it to manufacture saleable goods, and supporting contractor and Chartered Accountant certifications showed that the duty burden was not passed to customers. Consequential refund relief was granted.
Refund of export duty allegedly collected from an SEZ developer despite a court stay is discussed as not being subject to the ordinary limitation period where the claimant first pursued the SEZ authority and then filed before customs as directed. The text states that, following invalidation of the underlying levy, rejection solely as time-barred was unsustainable. It also explains that unjust enrichment did not apply where the SEZ developer was the ultimate buyer, used the steel to establish the SEZ, did not resell it or use it to manufacture saleable goods, and supporting contractor and Chartered Accountant certifications showed that the duty burden was not passed to customers. Consequential refund relief was granted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4790
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
