Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
CESTAT held that fabrication of transmission towers did not constitute manufacture, making excise duty collection illegal under Article 265. The tribunal rejected the department's time limitation argument u/s 11B of Central Excise Act, ruling that time limits do not apply when tax was not payable. The endorsement "under protest" on gate passes was deemed sufficient despite non-compliance with Rule 233B formalities. The appellant was granted refund with 12% interest per annum from the date of initial refund rejection, as retention of revenue deposit was held unconstitutional. The tribunal emphasized that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive rights when tax is collected without legal authority.
CESTAT held that fabrication of transmission towers did not constitute manufacture, making excise duty collection illegal under Article 265. The tribunal rejected the department's time limitation argument u/s 11B of Central Excise Act, ruling that time limits do not apply when tax was not payable. The endorsement "under protest" on gate passes was deemed sufficient despite non-compliance with Rule 233B formalities. The appellant was granted refund with 12% interest per annum from the date of initial refund rejection, as retention of revenue deposit was held unconstitutional. The tribunal emphasized that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive rights when tax is collected without legal authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
