Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
CESTAT determined refund claim's limitation period starts from final adjudication date (13.10.2015), not provisional assessment date. Refund application filed on 30.11.2015 was within limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act. Regarding unjust enrichment, Chartered Accountant's certificate validly demonstrated duty burden was not passed to customers. Lower authorities erred in dismissing CA certificate without cogent reasons. Appellant's accounting records showed excess duty paid on raw materials was not incorporated into final product costs. CESTAT held appellant entitled to refund as requirements under Section 18 of Customs Act were satisfied and unjust enrichment doctrine not applicable. Appeal allowed with consequential relief.
CESTAT determined refund claim's limitation period starts from final adjudication date (13.10.2015), not provisional assessment date. Refund application filed on 30.11.2015 was within limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act. Regarding unjust enrichment, Chartered Accountant's certificate validly demonstrated duty burden was not passed to customers. Lower authorities erred in dismissing CA certificate without cogent reasons. Appellant's accounting records showed excess duty paid on raw materials was not incorporated into final product costs. CESTAT held appellant entitled to refund as requirements under Section 18 of Customs Act were satisfied and unjust enrichment doctrine not applicable. Appeal allowed with consequential relief.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
