Maintainability of a Section 7 insolvency petition against a financial service provider denied; appeal dismissed for non maintainability and complex d...
Provisional attachment under Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires exhaustion of statutory remedies; impugned order set aside, appeal to tribuna...
Restoration of property under Prevention of Money Laundering Act after attachment dispute rendered academic; possession directed to successful resolut...
Goods Transport Agency services via e commerce portals: consignment note creates custody and liability and enables exemption for unregistered recipien...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6181 to 6200 of 96140 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Entitlement to refund of countervailing duty and special additional duty paid on excess imports under advance authorisation was asserted on the basis that post GST CENVAT credit was unavailable; transitional provisions require refunds accruing after GST implementation to be paid in cash and admissible credit refunded accordingly, and therefore the departmental rejection was incorrect. The tribunal found the refund claim complied with transitional cash refund rules and Section 142(6)(a) principles and directed allowance of the refund. The tribunal also held unjust enrichment did not bar refund because the refund amount was disclosed in financial statements and a chartered accountant certified non pass through of the duty incidence.
Entitlement to refund of countervailing duty and special additional duty paid on excess imports under advance authorisation was asserted on the basis that post GST CENVAT credit was unavailable; transitional provisions require refunds accruing after GST implementation to be paid in cash and admissible credit refunded accordingly, and therefore the departmental rejection was incorrect. The tribunal found the refund claim complied with transitional cash refund rules and Section 142(6)(a) principles and directed allowance of the refund. The tribunal also held unjust enrichment did not bar refund because the refund amount was disclosed in financial statements and a chartered accountant certified non pass through of the duty incidence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.