Madras High Court held that benefit of exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 not admissible without a valid ASEAN-India Free Trade Area [AIFTA] certificate. Accordingly, appeal of department allowed.
The court held that the BIS registration exemption under the Plywood and Wooden Flush Door Shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024, applies to micro enterprises even for imports, directing clearance of goods without requiring BIS certification.
Madras High Court modified the conditions for provisional release of goods [Viscose Knitted Fabric] due to alleged undervaluation and misclassification and directed to pay entire declared duty; 50% of differential duty and execute bond of specified sum.
Voluntary admission of turnover suppression made by a dealer at the time of inspection carried strong evidentiary value and could not be retracted without credible evidence. Appellate Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal erred in setting aside the assessment, as their reasoning was contrary to the evidence on record.
Provident fund dues were protected by statute and same were excluded from the liquidation estate of a company under Section 36(4)(a)(iii) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, thus, could not be denied to claimants on grounds of delay as it would defeat the object of protecting employees’ social security.
Madras High Court held that Appellate Assistant Commissioner is not justified in remanding the matter since authority has recorded a clear finding that explanations offered by assessee were very satisfactory. Accordingly, order remanding the matter quashed and appeal is allowed.
Madras High Court modified conditions for provisional release of PVC Coated Fabric [goods involved in misclassified and undervalued] and directed payment of duty; payment of 50% of differential duty and execution of bond for specified amount.
Madras High Court held that AO based on seized records and statement of dealer was justified in assessing the suppressed turnover. Accordingly, order of Assistant Commissioner and Tribunal set aside and addition upheld.
Madras High Court held that freight charges are directly related to the delivery of goods and therefore form an inseparable part of the sale consideration. Thus, freight charges form part of the sale price and are taxable under the Sales Tax Act.
Court observed that mere compliance by portal upload cannot replace genuine service of notice and directed reassessment after giving the taxpayer a fair hearing.
