Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
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 4819 
Join Channel 
