The Principal Commissioner was not justified in ignoring the certificate of origin issued by the competent authority in UAE. In the absence of a finding by the competent authority that this is a fake certificate, this certificate would conclusively prove that the imported goods originated from UAE.
CESTAT Delhi held that revocation of customs broker license upheld since Customs House Agent [CHA] violated regulation of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 as failed to verify importer’s credentials.
Madras High Court refused to interfere in order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing stoppage of increment of Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes since there is no perversity in the orders. Accordingly, writ dismissed.
Punjab and Haryana High Court held that claim of petitioner to be treated as Additional Commissioner while being posted at ITAT so as to grant the higher salary cannot be accepted since nothing brought on record stating that duties of higher nature were performed.
ITAT Vishakhapatnam held that dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) merely on account of non-prosecution by the assessee without disposing off on merits is not justifiable. Accordingly, order set aside and matter restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
ITAT Mumbai held that depreciation on the business/commercial rights arising from the manufacturing contracts, supply contracts and maintenance contracts as claimed by the assessee is allowable. Accordingly, appeal allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that addition towards bogus purchases based on supporting documentary evidence, without carrying out necessary verification from GST department, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, matter restored back to file of AO for re-adjudication.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Quicklime is rightly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 2522 1000 since the purity of Calcium Oxide is less than 98%. Accordingly, order classifying under 2825 9090 set aside.
The issue was regarding the disallowance of depreciation and expenses on retention money. Assessee had purchase contracts with retention money payable after successful performance of machinery and recorded the liability under the mercantile system.
The vehicles never plied on public roads. Believing this exclusive internal use made them exempt, Appellant sought relief from paying motor vehicle tax. The State Transport Department rejected the request and demanded over ₹22 lakh, which the company paid under protest.
