Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
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...
The CESTAT held that a refund claim of customs duty paid cannot be denied solely on the ground that modification of self-assessment is permissible only under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling clarifying that refund claims require modification of the assessment order by appropriate proceedings, which may include Section 128 or other relevant provisions. The original authority's restrictive interpretation was found to be legally incorrect. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to the refund amounts claimed. The impugned order denying the refund was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
The CESTAT held that a refund claim of customs duty paid cannot be denied solely on the ground that modification of self-assessment is permissible only under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling clarifying that refund claims require modification of the assessment order by appropriate proceedings, which may include Section 128 or other relevant provisions. The original authority's restrictive interpretation was found to be legally incorrect. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to the refund amounts claimed. The impugned order denying the refund was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.