Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
