Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding the petitioner's refund claims were filed within time and that the refund granted by the original authority was consequent to the appellate proceedings culminating in the CESTAT remand and final order. The court found the one-year limitation for refund claims runs from date of import/payment provided the procedural prerequisites of Notification No.102/2007-Cus are met, which the petitioner satisfied. The HC rejected respondent's contention that a fresh claim under s.27(1-B) was required, as that provision applies only where refund follows an order of the specified appellate authorities; accordingly the petitioner is entitled to the refund and the writ is allowed.
The HC allowed the writ petition, holding the petitioner's refund claims were filed within time and that the refund granted by the original authority was consequent to the appellate proceedings culminating in the CESTAT remand and final order. The court found the one-year limitation for refund claims runs from date of import/payment provided the procedural prerequisites of Notification No.102/2007-Cus are met, which the petitioner satisfied. The HC rejected respondent's contention that a fresh claim under s.27(1-B) was required, as that provision applies only where refund follows an order of the specified appellate authorities; accordingly the petitioner is entitled to the refund and the writ is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
