Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the refund claim arising from a successful challenge to an adjudication order constitutes consequential relief exempt from time limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal determined that amounts paid under protest during investigation are refundable without time bar restrictions, particularly when the appellant successfully overturned the original order. The Commissioner's rejection of the refund claim was deemed unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to recover the deposited amount of Rs. 5,00,000 as the payment was made under protest and should be treated as a deposit rather than duty payment.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the refund claim arising from a successful challenge to an adjudication order constitutes consequential relief exempt from time limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal determined that amounts paid under protest during investigation are refundable without time bar restrictions, particularly when the appellant successfully overturned the original order. The Commissioner's rejection of the refund claim was deemed unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to recover the deposited amount of Rs. 5,00,000 as the payment was made under protest and should be treated as a deposit rather than duty payment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.