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...
CESTAT allowed the appellant's refund claim for differential CVD on imported goods. The Tribunal accepted the Chartered Accountant's certificate proving the duty burden was not passed to customers, rejecting the department's contention. The refund claim was filed within the prescribed one-year limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act, with the payment date excluded from time calculation. The Tribunal relied on consistent precedents involving similar certificates and imports, finding in favor of the appellant's entitlement to refund under Notification No.12/2012-CE. The appeal was ultimately allowed, granting the requested customs duty refund.
CESTAT allowed the appellant's refund claim for differential CVD on imported goods. The Tribunal accepted the Chartered Accountant's certificate proving the duty burden was not passed to customers, rejecting the department's contention. The refund claim was filed within the prescribed one-year limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act, with the payment date excluded from time calculation. The Tribunal relied on consistent precedents involving similar certificates and imports, finding in favor of the appellant's entitlement to refund under Notification No.12/2012-CE. The appeal was ultimately allowed, granting the requested customs duty refund.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
