Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95955 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 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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
