Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
