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...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the refund claim for anti-dumping duty was filed within the statutory six-month limitation period prescribed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the appellant's submission of documents and refund application was timely, and this assertion was not contested by either the Appellate Authority or the department. Consequently, the finding that the claim was time-barred was deemed unsustainable. The portion of the impugned order denying the refund was set aside, and the original order sanctioning the refund of anti-dumping duty to the appellant was restored. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding that the refund claim for anti-dumping duty was filed within the statutory six-month limitation period prescribed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that the appellant's submission of documents and refund application was timely, and this assertion was not contested by either the Appellate Authority or the department. Consequently, the finding that the claim was time-barred was deemed unsustainable. The portion of the impugned order denying the refund was set aside, and the original order sanctioning the refund of anti-dumping duty to the appellant was restored. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
