Mark-to-Market losses on principal-protected debentures are deductible as business expenditure when the obligation is crystallized under mercantile ac...
Estoppel by conduct was applied where the petitioner voluntarily paid differential customs duty during a DRI investigation, sought closure and remained silent thereafter; the Court held this conduct barred a subsequent refund claim. The Court held Notification No.25/2019-Customs and the Finance Act amendment operate prospectively and do not alter duty lawfully incurred on 2014-2017 imports. Because payment was voluntary and investigation closure was accepted, no show cause notice was required, and the refund failed for lack of evidence negating unjust enrichment.
Estoppel by conduct was applied where the petitioner voluntarily paid differential customs duty during a DRI investigation, sought closure and remained silent thereafter; the Court held this conduct barred a subsequent refund claim. The Court held Notification No.25/2019-Customs and the Finance Act amendment operate prospectively and do not alter duty lawfully incurred on 2014-2017 imports. Because payment was voluntary and investigation closure was accepted, no show cause notice was required, and the refund failed for lack of evidence negating unjust enrichment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
