Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The CESTAT held that the adjudicating authority erred in applying Section 18(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding recovery of refund of excess customs duty paid during provisional assessment. The tribunal clarified that such provisional duty payments are deposits, not final duty, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to refunds of excess duty on unutilized stores. The appellant demonstrated that the refund claim was properly recorded in accounting books and the duty was not passed on to buyers. Consequently, the recovery order for Rs. 11,05,908/- plus interest was set aside. The appeal was allowed, affirming that no recovery is warranted under the circumstances.
The CESTAT held that the adjudicating authority erred in applying Section 18(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding recovery of refund of excess customs duty paid during provisional assessment. The tribunal clarified that such provisional duty payments are deposits, not final duty, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to refunds of excess duty on unutilized stores. The appellant demonstrated that the refund claim was properly recorded in accounting books and the duty was not passed on to buyers. Consequently, the recovery order for Rs. 11,05,908/- plus interest was set aside. The appeal was allowed, affirming that no recovery is warranted under the circumstances.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
