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...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
CESTAT allowed the refund application, holding that the limitation period was validly extended by Supreme Court's COVID-19 order. The appellant's refund application filed on 12.04.2022 was deemed timely, as the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was explicitly excluded from limitation calculations. The tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for being unaware of the Supreme Court's directive, ultimately dismissing the lower court's orders and granting the appellant's appeals.
CESTAT allowed the refund application, holding that the limitation period was validly extended by Supreme Court's COVID-19 order. The appellant's refund application filed on 12.04.2022 was deemed timely, as the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was explicitly excluded from limitation calculations. The tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for being unaware of the Supreme Court's directive, ultimately dismissing the lower court's orders and granting the appellant's appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
