CESTAT has in an order dated 09.10.2017, involved various parties, held that, Color coated aluminum foil are excluded from the ambit of this notification. In this context, reference has been received from the concerned field formations seeking a clarification for further course of action.
All varieties of pulses, including organic pulses, have been made ‘free’ for export without any quantitative ceilings, till further orders. However, for export through non-EDI Land Custom Stations (LCS), the exporter will have to do prior-registration of quantity with DGFT.
Considering the aforesaid hardship to the trade, it is now decided that the unmatches of Rs. 1000/-or below per supplier per year may be allowed without supplementary annexures being uploaded. It is further clarified that such claims shall be allowed provided the officer is not having any adverse information on record about such supplier.
Failure to issue notice on any particular issue does not vitiate the exercise of power under Section 263 as long as the assessee is heard and given opportunity
In the instant case, the tax has not deducted the TDS due to wrong classification of the payments made which was included under the heading ‘purchases’ and the purchases do not attract the TDS, whereas the sub contract payments attract TDS.
Central Government in the public interest hereby exempts all cases of combinations under section 5 of the Act involving the Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) operating in the Oil and Gas Sectors under the Petroleum Act, 1934 (30 of 1934) and the rules made there under or under the Oilfields (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (53 of 1948)
The Designated Authority vide notification No. 14/06/2015- DGAD dated 10th March, 2017, notified its final findings recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty on the imports of aluminium foil origination in or exported from China PR.
Dis allowance on account of VAT not pad of Rs.1,78,334/- was made by the AO only because of erroneous auditor’s report and it has been brought to our notice how the error has occurred and we find that assessee’s contentions are backed by records, therefore, we being the final fact finding authority, find that it was the mistake of the auditor who has wrongly given the figures and made wrong observation because of which the AO made the dis allowance. However, the AO before making the dis allowance could have asked the assessee to explain before making the dis allowance.
In the circumstances, a direction is issued to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal in an expeditious manner i.e., on or before 31/01/2018. It is needless to observe that in view of the specific direction issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, both parties are directed to co-operate with the Tribunal.
