Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The case involved a refund claim u/s 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 before CESTAT. The issue was regarding duty paid on re-importation of 'Ductile Iron Casting Manhole Covers, Frames & Grates' rejected by foreign customers. Assessee claimed refund citing improper assessment under N/N. 94/96-CUS and sought benefit of N/N. 158/95-CUS. The Majority decision held that the appeal was not maintainable as the matter was not referred to the Chief Commissioner of Customs as required by proviso to Section 129A. Consequently, the revenue appeal was dismissed by CESTAT.
The case involved a refund claim u/s 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 before CESTAT. The issue was regarding duty paid on re-importation of 'Ductile Iron Casting Manhole Covers, Frames & Grates' rejected by foreign customers. Assessee claimed refund citing improper assessment under N/N. 94/96-CUS and sought benefit of N/N. 158/95-CUS. The Majority decision held that the appeal was not maintainable as the matter was not referred to the Chief Commissioner of Customs as required by proviso to Section 129A. Consequently, the revenue appeal was dismissed by CESTAT.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
