Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
