Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
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 
of 4915 
