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 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
