Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Refund claim was rejected as time-barred, having been filed beyond the one-year limitation period stipulated u/s 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had inadvertently paid customs duty twice due to an ICEGATE error, resulting in double payment. The refund sanctioning authority held the refund claim as time-barred since it was not filed within one year from the date of duty payment. The key issue was whether the excess amount paid constituted a duty or a deposit, determining the applicability of Section 27's limitation period. The CESTAT upheld the rejection, ruling that barring unconstitutional levies, all refund claims must comply with statutory provisions, including limitation periods. The excess payment, though inadvertent, was in the nature of duty, not a deposit or illegal levy, and thus subject to Section 27's limitation. Tribunals, being statutory creatures, must function within the legislative framework.
Refund claim was rejected as time-barred, having been filed beyond the one-year limitation period stipulated u/s 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had inadvertently paid customs duty twice due to an ICEGATE error, resulting in double payment. The refund sanctioning authority held the refund claim as time-barred since it was not filed within one year from the date of duty payment. The key issue was whether the excess amount paid constituted a duty or a deposit, determining the applicability of Section 27's limitation period. The CESTAT upheld the rejection, ruling that barring unconstitutional levies, all refund claims must comply with statutory provisions, including limitation periods. The excess payment, though inadvertent, was in the nature of duty, not a deposit or illegal levy, and thus subject to Section 27's limitation. Tribunals, being statutory creatures, must function within the legislative framework.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
