Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
