No excise duty was leviable under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the allegation of illicit clearing as the department had miserably failed to substantiate the allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance by any tangible or corroborative evidence
Excise duty demand of approximately 24 crores against Volkswagen India was quashed on the amount recovered as liquidated damages on the ground of non-violation of Rule 6 of the Central Excise Rules,2002 and in the event of rejection of the invoice value as transaction value, it was not open to the adjudicating authority to re-determine value without recourse to Rule 6 of Central Excise Rules.
Department did not have a case that assessee had not discharged Service Tax on the agency commission received as a Steamer Agent or CHA.
Deduction claimed by assessee in return of income which was directly relatable to the insurance activities, as it did not fall under section 80P(2) i.e., Insurance activities.
Penalty under Rule 26 was justified on the proof that there were sufficient evidences adduced to allege clandestine removal and appellant had in his statement recorded under section 14 while giving the details of working of the unit had admitted that he was actively involved in the working of the unit.
For issuance of notice under section 148A(b), department was duty-bound and was mandatorily required to provide all material information or inquiry conducted along with supporting documents to assessee as per the provisions of Section 148A, therefore, the matter was remitted back to the respondent to supply all the relied-upon documents on the basis of which the notice had been issued and pass the order strictly in accordance with the law as mandated in the provision itself.
Re assessment notice issued under section 148 solely on basis of information received from the Kolkata Investigation Directorate that certain persons, who were based in Kolkata, had incorporated shell companies.
Where the law prescribed a manner in which a power had to be exercised, then such power could be exercised only in such a manner. No prior notice was served during personal hearings therefore, alleged personal hearings were in contravention of the Circular as circulars or instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) were legally binding on the department.
Merely because the loan processing charges though paid upfront but amortized over a period of five years, solely to be in consonance with the mercantile system of accounting, deduction of the entire charges in lump sum in the year in which the same were paid could not be denied to assessee.
Mr Sujeet Singh Hussain, in whose name M/s Madhu Enterprises was registered, had stated that he was working as a security guard in the office of present applicants, who got his signatures for opening the bank account and fraudulently got the firm registered in his name as well as other employees.
