Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs Ankit Enterprises (CESTAT Mumbai) Held that the goods have been imported, and presented, separately and independently; no evidence, other than conjecture about the conspiracy to disassemble branded products. Recovery of duty not sustainable. Facts- The assessees imported television sets, video compact disc (VCD) players, and music systems in disassembled form. […]
Held that as the assessee was not able to furnish any evidence to the fact that the seized cash represent accounted income and also assessee has accepted that no proper cash books was maintained. Accordingly, addition u/s 69A sustained and also penalty leviable u/s 271AAA.
CESTAT set aside the demand order has held that invoking extended limitation period by the Revenue Department cannot be sustained, being time barred and is invalid in absence of suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of assessee.
The responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not include keeping a continuous surveillance on the client. Once the verification is done requirement of regulation 10(n) is satisfied.
Powers under Section 9 of the A& C Act cannot be invoked by the competent Court prior to the termination of the conciliation proceedings under the MSMED Act.
No addition can be made only on the basis of statements of the third party without providing the opportunity of cross-examination of the person when specifically asked by the assessee in whose hand the addition has been made
Discrepancies in the silver jewellery cannot be said to be from an unexplained source as no such fact or allegation has either been made in the Survey. The discrepancy in the silver stock was in the regular course of the business of the assessee.
There cannot be any justification for the ONGC to withhold any amount on the premise that it has a claim of unliquidated damages against the petitioner
Held that as the assessee is in windmill’s power generation business, additional depreciation available for windmill u/s 32(1)(iia).
The intention of the parties is a key factor in determining the nature of the transaction. Hence, when the husband purchased the property in favour of his wife, unless the contrary is proved, it will be treated as the property of the wife purchased for her benefit.