Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Customs authorities erroneously collected excess duty on import of LCD panels despite Tribunal's prior decision against such classification. Refund claim was rejected on procedural grounds of non-furnishing documents, invoking interest liability u/s 27A. Appellant's compulsions were apparent - fastened with duty contrary to Tribunal's decision, deprived of order u/s 17(5) for appellate recourse, not a party to pending Supreme Court appeal, and limitation u/s 27. Refund application within one year was the only option. Rejection on procedural grounds after telescoped haste is invalidated. Order set aside, application restored for enabling appellant to provide deficient documents and fresh consideration as per settled classification law.
Customs authorities erroneously collected excess duty on import of LCD panels despite Tribunal's prior decision against such classification. Refund claim was rejected on procedural grounds of non-furnishing documents, invoking interest liability u/s 27A. Appellant's compulsions were apparent - fastened with duty contrary to Tribunal's decision, deprived of order u/s 17(5) for appellate recourse, not a party to pending Supreme Court appeal, and limitation u/s 27. Refund application within one year was the only option. Rejection on procedural grounds after telescoped haste is invalidated. Order set aside, application restored for enabling appellant to provide deficient documents and fresh consideration as per settled classification law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.