Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Customs Cochin-Cus Versus Hindustan News Print Ltd

2015 (3) TMI 1078 - CESTAT BENGLALORE

Denial of refund claim - respondents had not produced the Chartered Accountant’s certificate - respondents themselves had submitted before the original authority that the cost of coal imported has been absorbed and included in the cost of production - Held that:- Certificate issued by the Cost Accountant is dt. 11/08/2008 whereas the OIO was passed on 11/06/2008. Therefore the certificate issued by the Cost Accountant was produced before the Commissioner(Appeals) only. Unfortunately the Commissi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

quirements of Accounting Policies (Directors Responsibility Statement pursuant to Section 217(2)AA) also has not been considered in detail. It would be appropriate if the original authority reconsiders the issue by looking into the Cost Accountant’s certificate as well as the contradictions between the reply to the show-cause notice and the Cost Accountant’s certificate if any. There is also a need to examine the effect of Directors Responsibility as mentioned in the OIO. For these purposes, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

quested for time to produce evidence to show that the amount of refund had been shown as receivables in the financial records during the year 2006-07. Today when the matter was called, there is no such evidence produced nor the respondent is represented. 2. Heard the learned AR. He would submit that the respondents had not produced the Chartered Accountant s certificate for the relevant year. Further he also submits that respondents themselves had submitted before the original authority that the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nal assessment, SAD at 4% was also collected. Subsequently, the assessment was finalized on 20th July 2007. During the final assessment, the SAD was held as not to be payable and consequentially the importer filed a refund claim for an amount of ₹ 42,45,654/-. Refund claim was rejected on the ground that assessee themselves had submitted that the cost of coal including SAD part had been absorbed in the cost of production. The assessee had also submitted a Chartered Accountant s certificate .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version