top of page

CENEX UPDATE – 03.11.2020

  • Writer: Cenex Legal
    Cenex Legal
  • Nov 7, 2020
  • 1 min read

CX - As per Section 9D of CEA 1944, statements which are subsequently retracted cannot be used as admissible evidence, more so without permitting cross examination of witnesses: CESTAT

ST - Service Tax notifications are procedural in nature & cannot override provisions of SEZ Act 2005: CESTAT

Cus - Refund of differential duty paid under protest cannot be allowed where claimant does not fulfil conditions of unjust enrichment by failing to prove that incidence of excess duty paid was not passed on to other parties or was borne solely by it: CESTAT

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
CENEX UPDATE – 07.11.2020

CX - Property in the goods passed from the appellant to his buyer only at the port where they have obtained Let Export Order - services...

 
 
 
CENEX UPDATE – 06.11.2020

CX - Opinion of the Ministry of Finance rendered through Audit Reports is not conclusive & is also not a statement of law - hence it is...

 
 
 
CENEX UPDATE – 05.11.2020

CX - It is fit case for remand where Revenue contravenes principles of natural justice by not considering documents furnished by assessee...

 
 
 

Comments


Design & Maintained by Cenex Legal

bottom of page