Penalty under section 271(1)(c) deleted where income was disclosed in section 153A returns and remaining additions were only estimated or computationa...
A refund of Extra Duty Deposit was held not hit by unjust enrichment where the disputed amount had been shown as recoverable in the relevant balance sheet, supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate, and the payment had been made from a promoter's loan that was a transaction distinct from the import itself. The Tribunal found that such loan funding did not amount to passing on the duty incidence to another person, so credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was unsustainable and the refund was payable to the appellant. It also held that interest was payable on the delayed refund in accordance with the Customs Act, applying the principle in Ranbaxy Laboratories.
A refund of Extra Duty Deposit was held not hit by unjust enrichment where the disputed amount had been shown as recoverable in the relevant balance sheet, supported by a Chartered Accountant certificate, and the payment had been made from a promoter's loan that was a transaction distinct from the import itself. The Tribunal found that such loan funding did not amount to passing on the duty incidence to another person, so credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was unsustainable and the refund was payable to the appellant. It also held that interest was payable on the delayed refund in accordance with the Customs Act, applying the principle in Ranbaxy Laboratories.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
