Held that revenue needs to establish that the goods lying or found in the shop/ godwon of the assessee are not duty paid.
Held that treating value of international transaction as NIL without searching for transaction between non-associated enterprises is unsustainable in law
Held that a person from whom goods are seized has the right to seek provisional release immediately even as adjudication proceedings takes its own course.
Held that Manual issued by the Government suggesting settlement of dispute by arbitration would not amount to execution of arbitration agreement between the parties. Application u/s 11(4) & 11(6) dismissed as no arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
Held that the machine and two DG sets are under seal for more than two years. The impugned action of the department is wholly without jurisdiction for which the petitioner is liable to be compensated
Held that the sale of SIL shares held by the assessee as investment is to be treated as short term capital gain and not as business income.
Held that as per the reply notice, the petitioner has waived the right to settle the dispute in an arbitration proceedings. Accordingly, if the right is once waived it cannot be allowed to be reclaimed.
Held that right to file the application u/s 8(1) of A&C Act, after the statutory period to file the written statement, is closed
Held that as summoning of the petitioners by the respondents would not amount to taking any coercive steps like arresting them or prosecuting them, but only to proceed forward with the investigation. Such summons not contrary to the provisions of Cr.P.C.
Held that an unpardonable lackadaisical approach/ attitude of the `Party’ in pursuing a matter before the `Competent Authority’ / `Tribunal’ is not to be accepted. Delay not condoned in such case even if the appellant being statutory organization.
