Refund of excess duty – Import of vessel for dredging work – If ...

Customs

September 2, 2015

Refund of excess duty – Import of vessel for dredging work – If refund claim was in respect of Bunkers on imported vessels namely dredger, then that could have been entertained and allowed - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Refund of excess duty – Import of vessel for dredging work – If ...

Customs

September 2, 2015

You may also like:

Refund claim in respect of excess paid duty - proceeding of rebate and proceeding of refund are two different proceedings - appellant have rightly claimed the refund of...

Refund of excess duty paid on actual consumption of bunkers on the vessel during coastal trade - Unjust enrichment - Refund allowed - AT

Import duty - When the vessel was manufactured by an Indian company and was sold to another Indian company which was using this vessel, no question of import duty arises - SC

Refund claim of customs duty - short landing of the imported goods - This is not a case for remission of duty but is a case of application for refund on the ground that...

Refund - valuation - The liquidated damages have to be deducted from the assessable value given in the invoice in respect of payment of central excise duty - refund of...

Refund claim - excess duty paid due to downward revision of price - They have furnished CA certificate to substantiate that the incidence of duty has not been passed on...

Claim of refund of excess duty of customs paid - exemption from customs duty - assessee has not challenged the assessment before any appellate Forum - refund allowed - AT

Refund in cash - export of goods - refund of duty paid in excess through cenvat credit - voluntary excess payment of duty - re-credit allowed - no cash refund - CGOVT

Suo moto credit versus filing of refund claim - suo moto credit can be taken if duty is paid twice as excess duty paid is not a duty and same is deposit - AT

CENVAT Credit - Denial of refund claim - Whether the appellant was correct in taking credit on his own in respect of amount paid by him in excess in October 2001 - Held No - AT

Quick Updates: