Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
CESTAT dismissed an appeal concerning refund claims for excess Countervailing Duty (CVD) on mobile phone imports. The tribunal upheld rejection on three grounds: time-bar (claim filed in 2019 for 2014 payments exceeded one-year limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act, with no evidence of protest payment), lack of prerequisite reassessment (77 Bills of Entry remained unmodified despite appellant's amendment request), and failure to overcome unjust enrichment presumption (insufficient evidence that duty burden wasn't passed to buyers). The appellant's incomplete CA certificate failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Section 11B of Central Excise Act and Section 27 of Customs Act.
CESTAT dismissed an appeal concerning refund claims for excess Countervailing Duty (CVD) on mobile phone imports. The tribunal upheld rejection on three grounds: time-bar (claim filed in 2019 for 2014 payments exceeded one-year limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act, with no evidence of protest payment), lack of prerequisite reassessment (77 Bills of Entry remained unmodified despite appellant's amendment request), and failure to overcome unjust enrichment presumption (insufficient evidence that duty burden wasn't passed to buyers). The appellant's incomplete CA certificate failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Section 11B of Central Excise Act and Section 27 of Customs Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
