Since it was not possible to sustain the CVD levied for ‘other program’ and if the other program was excluded from the subsidy margin determination, assessee would fall below the de minimis level. The imposition of 2.47% CVD on assessee at serial no. 8 of the notification dated January 8, 2020 was, therefore, liable to be set aside.
Concerning the scope of section 254, ignoring the material already on record on the part of Tribunal was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Thus, Tribunal had rightly recalled its order and rectified the mistake and it had rightly set aside the additions under Section 68.
Assesssee was admitted to bail linked to bank loan fraud arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court as it was not the case of the prosecution that the accused was of such character and stature that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses and there was no material on record to show that if released on bail, he would tamper with the evidence or subvert the course of justice.
State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari (Supreme Court of India) Conclusion: Salaries and pensions were rightful entitlements of Government employees and the Government which had delayed the payment of salaries and pensions should be directed to pay interest at an appropriate rate which was 6% instead of 12%. Held: A writ […]
J. K. Cement Works Vs Commissioner, Central Excise, Central Goods and Service Tax (CESTA Delhi) Conclusion: Adjudicating Authority was directed to grant interest from the date of deposit till the date of grant of a refund at the rate of 12% per annum. Such interest on refund should be granted within a period of 60 […]
Messrs Mahalaxmi Rubtech Ltd. Vs Union of India (Gujarat High Court) Conclusion: Since in the present case, the amendment of shipping bills by converting them into Drawback shipping bills was possible on the basis of the documentary evidence which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared for export and the benefit of […]
Where the business of assessee was discontinued and the premises had been taken over by the Bank as part of its recovery proceedings, the crisis being faced upon consequent action taken by Bank was the reasonable cause which prevented assessee from submitting the requisite information/documents on the notices issued by AO and for remaining non complied with the same.
Service of notice through registered post was proper service of notice and there was no requirement to serve notice under certificate of posting as there was no rebuttal evidence to show that the complainant has deliberately and intentionally sent the legal notice to the wrong address and the accused was not working at the place and address shown in the registered envelope.
Residential accommodation for nuns and hostels for students which were attached to various educational institutions could claim property tax exemption under Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.
Demand notice demanding duty to the tune of Rs.25,03,414/- on the basis of bill of entries filed for imported second hand equipment on the ground that assessee had contravened the provisions of DFSECC Scheme benefit of exemption under the Notification No. 54/2003 was not sustainable as after issuance of demand notice, no steps had been taken by Authorities in furtherance of the aforesaid notice and almost after 11 years, assessee would be justified in forming a bonafide belief that the demand notice must have been dropped.
