CESTAT Mumbai held that imposition of penalty for failure in not being proactive for fulfilling of regulation 10(a) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 [CBLR,2018] alone, is appropriate and justifiable.
CESTAT Delhi held that re-determination of value resorting to valuation under Rule 7 of the Customs Valuation Rules justified on failure to advance any documents/ invoice to substantiate the value of goods.
CESTAT Delhi upheld revocation of Customs Broker license on failure to make appropriate enquiries of their client and for facilitating fraudulent highly under-valued exports.
CESTAT Chandigarh held that steel balls are classifiable under the Chapter Heading 8482 9900 and not under Chapter Heading 8714 as contended by revenue. Accordingly, duty demand set aside.
CESTAT Mumbai held that forfeiture of security deposit justified as Customs Broker failed to act in a proactive manner in fulfilling their obligation as Customs Broker, particularly when the import documents were obtained from the importers through an intermediary.
CESTAT Mumbai held that revocation of Customs Broker license unjustified as punishment suffered by being out of Customs broker business for about two years is enough to mitigate case of violations or contraventions of CBLR, 2018.
ITAT Mumbai held that additional evidences submitted contesting that sales promotion expenses are not hit by the Medical Council Regulations. Accordingly, matter set aside for fresh examination as such additional evidences require examination at the end of AO.
Delhi High Court held that the Income Tax Act does not seem to cast a burden on the deductee/payee with regard to the deposit of money, which is retained as tax, by the payer i.e., the deductor.
Himachal Pradesh High Court held that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not enable the court to convict the accused. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality for an offence under Sections 7and 13 of the PC Act.
Supreme Court that the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT) has jurisdiction only u/s. 31(2) of the Code, which gives power not to approve only when the Resolution Plan does not meet the requirement laid down u/s. 31(1) of the Code, for which a reasoned order is required to be passed.
