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 allowed the appellant's refund claim, overturning the lower authority's rejection. The Tribunal determined that the refund claim filed on 24.09.2021 was not time-barred as it was submitted within one year of the Order-in-Original dated 22.07.2021 that dropped the service tax demand, satisfying Section 11B of Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of Finance Act. The principles of unjust enrichment were inapplicable since the amount was erroneously collected as service tax on SIM card sales, an activity established as non-taxable. The absence of ST-3 returns was deemed irrelevant since the appellant had no service tax liability for the period in question, making the lower authority's rejection grounds factually incorrect.
CESTAT allowed the appellant's refund claim, overturning the lower authority's rejection. The Tribunal determined that the refund claim filed on 24.09.2021 was not time-barred as it was submitted within one year of the Order-in-Original dated 22.07.2021 that dropped the service tax demand, satisfying Section 11B of Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of Finance Act. The principles of unjust enrichment were inapplicable since the amount was erroneously collected as service tax on SIM card sales, an activity established as non-taxable. The absence of ST-3 returns was deemed irrelevant since the appellant had no service tax liability for the period in question, making the lower authority's rejection grounds factually incorrect.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.