Concessional Basic Customs Duty on Ethernet switches: classification as enterprise switches upheld, challenge dismissed for lack of substantial law qu...
Insolvency petition based on admitted debt and default upheld; challenge for malicious initiation rejected, settlement may proceed under resolution fr...
Quashing of FIR and challenge to ECIR over alleged diversion of funds and preferential ESOP pricing dismissed after prima facie money-laundering findi...
Section 142(3) of the CGST Act does not create a fresh refund right where the underlying CENVAT credit entitlement had already expired under the six-month limit from the duty-paying document. The Tribunal held that credit on the challan dated 09.05.2019 could be taken only until 09.11.2019, so a later transitional refund claim was time-barred. The COVID limitation extension could not revive a claim that had already lapsed before the pandemic period. It also held that excess payment against the bill of entry was customs duty, so any refund had to be claimed under Section 27 of the Customs Act; reliance on the EODC was misplaced.
Section 142(3) of the CGST Act does not create a fresh refund right where the underlying CENVAT credit entitlement had already expired under the six-month limit from the duty-paying document. The Tribunal held that credit on the challan dated 09.05.2019 could be taken only until 09.11.2019, so a later transitional refund claim was time-barred. The COVID limitation extension could not revive a claim that had already lapsed before the pandemic period. It also held that excess payment against the bill of entry was customs duty, so any refund had to be claimed under Section 27 of the Customs Act; reliance on the EODC was misplaced.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
