Personal hearing requirements in GST adjudication were satisfied by prior opportunities and written submissions; appellate limitation received writ-pe...
Interactive flat panels meeting automatic data processing conditions are distinguished from monitors, while later classification clarifications apply ...
The case involved a dispute over unjust enrichment where the appellant was required to prove that customers received machines/equipment as invoiced. The Revenue failed to investigate with customers or transporters. Goods seized by Revenue were linked to the invoices. The appellant did not confirm clearance of goods. The Commissioner(Appeals) approved a refund, finding the appellant paid duty twice. The order was upheld, dismissing Revenue's appeal. The issue of unjust enrichment was referred for further verification.
The case involved a dispute over unjust enrichment where the appellant was required to prove that customers received machines/equipment as invoiced. The Revenue failed to investigate with customers or transporters. Goods seized by Revenue were linked to the invoices. The appellant did not confirm clearance of goods. The Commissioner(Appeals) approved a refund, finding the appellant paid duty twice. The order was upheld, dismissing Revenue's appeal. The issue of unjust enrichment was referred for further verification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
