Political contribution deductions require assessee-specific proof before cash-back allegations can justify disallowance or unexplained-money additions...
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 
Join Channel 
