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...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that a duplicate payment of customs duty on the same import consignment does not constitute a taxable levy and is refundable notwithstanding the time bar invoked under s.27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that administrative records confirmed two payments against one Bill of Entry, that departmental procedures and CBIC/JNCH policy treat such duplicate post-acceptance payments as deposits, and that lower authorities failed to consider material bank verification. Consequently the claim for refund of Rs.5,35,010/- paid twice was allowed and the refund direction was restored.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that a duplicate payment of customs duty on the same import consignment does not constitute a taxable levy and is refundable notwithstanding the time bar invoked under s.27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found that administrative records confirmed two payments against one Bill of Entry, that departmental procedures and CBIC/JNCH policy treat such duplicate post-acceptance payments as deposits, and that lower authorities failed to consider material bank verification. Consequently the claim for refund of Rs.5,35,010/- paid twice was allowed and the refund direction was restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
