Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
281 to 300 of 95714 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) being rejected due to mismatch in description of imported goods, non-compliance with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. It highlights that rejection of the Chartered Accountant's certificate and reconciliation statement, as required by the Board's Circular, should be based on reliable incriminating documents, with reasons clearly spelled out. Minor mismatches in description or clerical errors do not invalidate the refund claim. The summary refers to relevant case laws, including a Larger Bench judgment of CESTAT and a Madras High Court judgment, which upheld that the adjudicating authority cannot disbelieve the CA's certificate without material evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. The impugned order rejecting the refund claims is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) being rejected due to mismatch in description of imported goods, non-compliance with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. It highlights that rejection of the Chartered Accountant's certificate and reconciliation statement, as required by the Board's Circular, should be based on reliable incriminating documents, with reasons clearly spelled out. Minor mismatches in description or clerical errors do not invalidate the refund claim. The summary refers to relevant case laws, including a Larger Bench judgment of CESTAT and a Madras High Court judgment, which upheld that the adjudicating authority cannot disbelieve the CA's certificate without material evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. The impugned order rejecting the refund claims is set aside, and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
