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 dispute over the refund of a cash security deposit u/s 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellate Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund on the grounds of time limitation u/s 27 was incorrect. The deposit was made as security for provisional assessment by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB). Once the SVB accepted the declared value, the security became refundable. Rule 18(2) states that any excess amount paid by the appellant should be refunded upon finalization of assessment within three months u/s 18(4). Section 18(5) is independent of Section 27. The impugned order wrongly applied the limitation u/s 27, whereas the refund should have been processed u/s 18(4). The appeal was allowed.
The case involved a dispute over the refund of a cash security deposit u/s 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellate Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund on the grounds of time limitation u/s 27 was incorrect. The deposit was made as security for provisional assessment by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB). Once the SVB accepted the declared value, the security became refundable. Rule 18(2) states that any excess amount paid by the appellant should be refunded upon finalization of assessment within three months u/s 18(4). Section 18(5) is independent of Section 27. The impugned order wrongly applied the limitation u/s 27, whereas the refund should have been processed u/s 18(4). The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
