Warehousing permission requires deposit at the designated bonded warehouse; unauthorised diversion triggers confiscation, redemption fine and importer...
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order. The Tribunal found that the refund claim was erroneously rejected by the lower authorities on the ground of limitation u/s 11B, as there was an inconsistency in treating part of the amount paid as a pre-deposit and the remaining amount differently, despite being of the same nature. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the issue required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.
The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order. The Tribunal found that the refund claim was erroneously rejected by the lower authorities on the ground of limitation u/s 11B, as there was an inconsistency in treating part of the amount paid as a pre-deposit and the remaining amount differently, despite being of the same nature. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the issue required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
