Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2741 to 2760 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The High Court held that the rejection of refund claim for Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) paid by the petitioner was unjustified. The EDD amount collected during Special Valuation Branch (SVB) proceedings was not a customs duty u/s 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was a deposit eligible for appropriation towards duty liability after final assessment. The amount over the payable duty should be refunded after Bill of Entry assessment, subject to no unjust enrichment u/s 27. The impugned order was set aside, and respondents were directed to complete proceedings within six months. The petition was allowed.
The High Court held that the rejection of refund claim for Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) paid by the petitioner was unjustified. The EDD amount collected during Special Valuation Branch (SVB) proceedings was not a customs duty u/s 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was a deposit eligible for appropriation towards duty liability after final assessment. The amount over the payable duty should be refunded after Bill of Entry assessment, subject to no unjust enrichment u/s 27. The impugned order was set aside, and respondents were directed to complete proceedings within six months. The petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
