ITAT Jaipur held that officers of DRI are not proper officers for the purposes of Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 and hence order and show cause notice are not maintainable. Accordingly, addition confirmed thereon is unsustainable.
ITAT Visakhapatnam held that the export entitlements is an income assessable under the head profits or gains from business or profession as per clause (iiib) and (iiid) to section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that activity of only transportation of goods will not be considered as cargo handling service.
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that nothing in the expression of Section 17(4) indicates that re-assessment of duty can be done at the request of party which has self-assessed its Bill of Entry and after clearance wants another benefit.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that interest on delayed refund at the rate of 12% per annum payable from the date of deposit till the date of payment.
CESTAT Mumbai held that unless and until the assessment made at the dealer’s end is revised or altered, the Cenvat credit availed on the basis of invoices by the recipient’s unit cannot denied/whittled down.
ITAT Hyderabad in case of excess stock of gold found during survey held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act up to 100% of the tax evaded is justified instead of 298% as upheld by CIT(A).
ITAT Allahabad held that additions made based on the incriminating material (being excess stock) found during survey conducted u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act is justifiable.
CESTAT Delhi held that customs broker cannot allow its licence to be used by someone else impersonating it. Accordingly, revocation of customs licence, forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty justified.
ITAT Bangalore held that Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) is the most appropriate method for determining the Arm’s Length Price of the assessee for the importing of goods for manufacturing segment.
