Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Page of 4830
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96587 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC upheld the CESTAT's decision affirming that the chartered accountant's certificate submitted by the respondent company sufficiently demonstrated that the excess customs duty paid was not passed on to consumers, satisfying the burden of proof under principles of unjust enrichment. The Adjudicating Authority's discretion under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act to direct refund credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was acknowledged, but no contrary evidence was presented to justify rejection of the refund. Consequently, the refund of excess customs duty was ordered to be granted to the respondent company. The petitions were disposed of with a compliance listing scheduled.
The HC upheld the CESTAT's decision affirming that the chartered accountant's certificate submitted by the respondent company sufficiently demonstrated that the excess customs duty paid was not passed on to consumers, satisfying the burden of proof under principles of unjust enrichment. The Adjudicating Authority's discretion under Section 27(2) of the Customs Act to direct refund credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was acknowledged, but no contrary evidence was presented to justify rejection of the refund. Consequently, the refund of excess customs duty was ordered to be granted to the respondent company. The petitions were disposed of with a compliance listing scheduled.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.