Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The appellant challenged the rejection of refund claim for excess export duty paid due to downward revision, on the ground of failure to rebut the presumption u/s 28D of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding non-passing of duty incidence to others. The Tribunal analyzed the cost sheet certified by the Chartered Accountant, which showed the export duty amount calculated separately and not included in the FOB value. Relying on the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Asia Pacific Commodities Ltd. case and its own decision in Muneer Enterprises case, the Tribunal held that in FOB contracts, the presumption u/s 28D stands rebutted, and the incidence of duty has not been passed on to overseas buyers. The Circular No.18/2008-Cust cited by the Department was found inapplicable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
The appellant challenged the rejection of refund claim for excess export duty paid due to downward revision, on the ground of failure to rebut the presumption u/s 28D of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding non-passing of duty incidence to others. The Tribunal analyzed the cost sheet certified by the Chartered Accountant, which showed the export duty amount calculated separately and not included in the FOB value. Relying on the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Asia Pacific Commodities Ltd. case and its own decision in Muneer Enterprises case, the Tribunal held that in FOB contracts, the presumption u/s 28D stands rebutted, and the incidence of duty has not been passed on to overseas buyers. The Circular No.18/2008-Cust cited by the Department was found inapplicable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
