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...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
