Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
