Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
