Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
Refund of anti-dumping duty paid before rescission was upheld because the rescinding notification expressly applied only prospectively and preserved things done before rescission. The Court noted that duty payments made before 29.02.2012 fell within that saving clause, and the Designated Authority's final findings had recorded no adverse impact on the domestic industry, no price suppression or depression, and no justification for continued anti-dumping duty on phenol from Chinese Taipei and the USA. In view of those findings, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose, declined to interfere with the Tribunal's refund order, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Refund of anti-dumping duty paid before rescission was upheld because the rescinding notification expressly applied only prospectively and preserved things done before rescission. The Court noted that duty payments made before 29.02.2012 fell within that saving clause, and the Designated Authority's final findings had recorded no adverse impact on the domestic industry, no price suppression or depression, and no justification for continued anti-dumping duty on phenol from Chinese Taipei and the USA. In view of those findings, the Court held that no substantial question of law arose, declined to interfere with the Tribunal's refund order, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
