Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
781 to 800 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
