Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
CESTAT upheld rejection of a customs duty refund claim filed on 09.01.2024 relating to payments made via challans between March-December 2017 under EPCG scheme. The appellant's claim was time-barred under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962, as it exceeded the one-year limitation period from duty payment date. The Tribunal noted that no statutory relaxations under Section 27(1B) were applicable. Following precedent from IFGL Refractories case, CESTAT found no grounds to interfere with the original order rejecting the refund claim due to clear statutory time-bar. The appeal was dismissed on merits, affirming that limitation periods under Customs Act must be strictly observed.
CESTAT upheld rejection of a customs duty refund claim filed on 09.01.2024 relating to payments made via challans between March-December 2017 under EPCG scheme. The appellant's claim was time-barred under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962, as it exceeded the one-year limitation period from duty payment date. The Tribunal noted that no statutory relaxations under Section 27(1B) were applicable. Following precedent from IFGL Refractories case, CESTAT found no grounds to interfere with the original order rejecting the refund claim due to clear statutory time-bar. The appeal was dismissed on merits, affirming that limitation periods under Customs Act must be strictly observed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
