Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Page of 4821
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1541 to 1560 of 96408 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Refund of duty paid under protest was held to arise only after the underlying dispute on exemption or classification is finally settled in the assessee's own case. Applying Dena Snuff, the Tribunal found that the decisive question was whether a legally enforceable cause of action for refund existed on the date of the application, not the later success on exemption entitlement. Because the eligibility dispute had not been finally decided when the refund was filed, the claim was premature and correctly rejected. The Tribunal also noted that a show cause notice under section 28 of the Customs Act requires an existing cause of action and that protective demands issued without one are not sustainable.
Refund of duty paid under protest was held to arise only after the underlying dispute on exemption or classification is finally settled in the assessee's own case. Applying Dena Snuff, the Tribunal found that the decisive question was whether a legally enforceable cause of action for refund existed on the date of the application, not the later success on exemption entitlement. Because the eligibility dispute had not been finally decided when the refund was filed, the claim was premature and correctly rejected. The Tribunal also noted that a show cause notice under section 28 of the Customs Act requires an existing cause of action and that protective demands issued without one are not sustainable.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
