Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Vicarious liability for dishonoured company cheques may extend to non-signatory directors where complaints contain foundational responsibility avermen...
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that the appellant is entitled to a refund of excess additional customs duty. The Tribunal accepted the chartered accountant's certificate dated 29.12.2015, which was identically issued for imports from Delhi, Ahmedabad, and Hyderabad, as sufficient proof that the incidence of duty was not passed on to buyers. The Hyderabad and Ahmedabad Benches had previously upheld the certificate's validity. The Tribunal rejected the department's contention that additional corroborative evidence u/ss 28C and 28D of the Customs Act was required. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) orders confirming the deposit of the sanctioned amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund were set aside, and the appellant was held entitled to refunds of Rs. 3,43,88,087/- and Rs. 2,33,05,108/- with consequential relief.
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled that the appellant is entitled to a refund of excess additional customs duty. The Tribunal accepted the chartered accountant's certificate dated 29.12.2015, which was identically issued for imports from Delhi, Ahmedabad, and Hyderabad, as sufficient proof that the incidence of duty was not passed on to buyers. The Hyderabad and Ahmedabad Benches had previously upheld the certificate's validity. The Tribunal rejected the department's contention that additional corroborative evidence u/ss 28C and 28D of the Customs Act was required. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) orders confirming the deposit of the sanctioned amount in the Consumer Welfare Fund were set aside, and the appellant was held entitled to refunds of Rs. 3,43,88,087/- and Rs. 2,33,05,108/- with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
