Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
481 to 500 of 95957 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 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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
