Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
CESTAT allowed appellant's refund claim for EC and SHEC paid during July 2004 to December 2013, overruling time limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal determined that amount was paid under mistake of law, rendering statutory one-year limitation period inapplicable. Relying on precedential rulings from jurisdictional HC, the Tribunal held that refund claim cannot be dismissed as time-barred when payment was made erroneously. The impugned order was set aside, effectively granting the appellant's refund petition.
CESTAT allowed appellant's refund claim for EC and SHEC paid during July 2004 to December 2013, overruling time limitation under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal determined that amount was paid under mistake of law, rendering statutory one-year limitation period inapplicable. Relying on precedential rulings from jurisdictional HC, the Tribunal held that refund claim cannot be dismissed as time-barred when payment was made erroneously. The impugned order was set aside, effectively granting the appellant's refund petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
