Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
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 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
