Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The period of limitation of one year does not apply when the amount claimed as refund has been paid under protest. Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, only recognizes the fact of payment of amounts under protest and does not recognize the vacation of such protest once it is established that the amount claimed as refund was paid under protest. The provisions of Section 27 cannot be applied to refund claims for penalty and fines, as these amounts were paid under protest as per the department's direction for effecting the clearance of goods, though the order imposing the fine and penalty was challenged in appeal. Therefore, the refund claim cannot be held barred by the limitation provided in Section 27, and the impugned order rejecting the refund claim lacks merit, leading to the allowance of the appeal.
The period of limitation of one year does not apply when the amount claimed as refund has been paid under protest. Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, only recognizes the fact of payment of amounts under protest and does not recognize the vacation of such protest once it is established that the amount claimed as refund was paid under protest. The provisions of Section 27 cannot be applied to refund claims for penalty and fines, as these amounts were paid under protest as per the department's direction for effecting the clearance of goods, though the order imposing the fine and penalty was challenged in appeal. Therefore, the refund claim cannot be held barred by the limitation provided in Section 27, and the impugned order rejecting the refund claim lacks merit, leading to the allowance of the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.