Section 27 of Customs Act, which specifies that limitation period for refunds must be calculated from date of reassessment, not from initial filing of bills of entry.
BPCL challenges the Central Excise classification of propylene, seeking relief against the differential duty imposed by the authorities.
CESTAT Mumbai sets aside service tax demand against Konkan Railway for excess Cenvat credit adjustment due to unutilized credit under CGST Act, 2017.
CESTAT Mumbai held that allegation of mis-declaration and duty demand thereon not sustained as department doesn’t challenged transaction value. Further, importer duly mentioned value of all the imported goods in the invoice. Hence, duty demand not sustained.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rejection of refund claim on procedural grounds of non-furnishing of documents required to process the claim in invalidated. Accordingly, order set aside and matter restored to original authority.
There was no indication of action for cancellation having taken by DGFT authorities or any information provided by Revenue that an action was later taken by DGFT authorities.
CESTAT Mumbai held that appellants Customs Broker (CB) was not handling the export consignment hence it cannot be said that they had violated Regulation 10(d) and 10(n). Thus, revocation of license unjustified.
CESTAT Mumbai held that rejection of request for amendment of shipping bills u/s. 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground of delay unjustified as legal provisions doesn’t prescribe any specific time limit.
CESTAT approves refund claim of ₹15.3 lakh for Rare Townships Pvt Ltd. Dispute over stamp duty compliance resolved in favor of the appellant.
CESTAT Mumbai directs refund verification of ₹24 lakhs pre-deposit in Shiva Steel Industries case, remanding for fresh proceedings and verification of documents.
