Delhi High Court held that the system of imposition of anti-dumping duty does not end with the disclosure statement being published. Thus, held that the writ petitions cannot be held to be not maintainable at the stage of the disclosure statement.
Present matter involves Nowheira Shaik who is executive Chairperson and Founder of the Heera Group. He is accused to have been involved in cheating various investors. Accordingly, to refund the investors ED had attached 96 properties.
Mere presence of carbon dioxide or carbonated water cannot be treated to classify the subject items under water or carbonated water. Therefore, the classification sought to be made by the Revenue cannot be accepted.
Delhi High Court held that passing of three contradictory orders by CESTAT in the same appeal is not justifiable. However, appeal of department before CESTAT dismissed as the amount involved was below monetary limit.
During the course of a survey, it was seen that the assessee had defaulted in deducting tax at source on interest paid to AGE Patel Joint Venture (JV) in Financial Year (FY) 2016-17 on Mobilisation advance and Machinery advance.
Delhi High Court quashed orders due to inordinate delay of more than 11 years in finalizing adjudication proceeding. Held that matters having financial liabilities or penal consequences cannot be kept unresolved for years.
The petitioner raised bills on respondent No.4 based on the works executed from time to time, TDS @ 2% on the total value of the bills were recovered by respondent No.4 for the value of works executed in the State of Telangana and Maharashtra.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition on the basis of loose papers and documents found from the premises of third party is not tenable in the eye of law. Accordingly, appeal of the revenue is dismissed since addition not based on substantial evidence.
CESTAT Delhi held that regulation 10(n) doesn’t mandate Customs Broker to verify correctness of certificate or registration issued by other concerned government officer. Thus, revocation of customs broker licence and forfeiture of security deposit are set aside.
In W.P.No.6541 of 2022, the petitioner has challenged the Circular No.125/44/2019 dated 18.11.2019 issued by the third respondent and for a further direction to the first respondent to reconsider the refund claim on its merits.
