2012-TIOL-97-SC-NDPS + Story
Shahejadkhan Mahebudkhan Pathan Vs State of Gujarat
NDPS: First Time Offenders who are poor - Sentence reduced to 10 years from 15 years: It is projected that both the appellants are first time offenders and there is no past antecedent about their involvement in offence of like nature on earlier occasions. Sentence reduced to 10 years, which is the minimum prescribed sentence under the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act.
Imprisonment of three years in lieu of fine reduced to six months: it was their first offence and if they fail to pay the amount of fine as per the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, they have to remain in jail for a period of 3 years in addition to the period of substantive sentence because of their inability to pay the fine. Serious prejudice will be caused not only to them but also to their family members who are innocent. Default sentence reduced to six months. - Appeals Partly Allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RBI CIRCULARS
rbi12cir039
Trade Credits for Imports into India – Review of all-in-cost ceiling
rbi12cir040
External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) Policy – Review of all-in-cost ceiling
MIXED BUZZ
CCI emphasises need for encouraging Competitive practices in public procurement
UN Chief praises France for anti-dealth penalty initiative
Shome Panel for no interest, no penalty in retro amendments affected cases
CIRCULAR
it12cir08
Income Tax Deduction From Salaries during the Financial Year 2012-2013 under Section 192 of The Income Tax Act, 1961
CASE LAWS
2012-TIOL-820-HC-MUM-IT + Story
Smt Rajrani Gupta Vs DCIT
Income Tax – Sections 132, 143(3), 158BA, 158BB(3) – Whether when the assessee actually receives no gifts from NRIs but misdeclares large sums as gifts on capital account, detection of such receipts during a Search is to be treated as undisclosed income - Whether the evidence found during the search can alone be a basis for block assessment – Whether where the gifts received by the assessee are found to be not genuine, then the amounts represented by those gifts become undisclosed income and hence covered under block assessment – Whether the burden of proof is on the assessee in terms of Section 158BB(3) of the Act to satisfy the AO that the so called undisclosed income has already been disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee – Whether mere mentioning of an amount as capital receipt in the Capital Account would not amount to a disclosure of income. - Assessee's appeal dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2012-TIOL-819-HC-P&H-IT
CIT Vs Superintendent Of Police
Income Tax - Sections 139A(5B), 260A, 272B, Rule 46A, 114 B to D - Whether for non/wrong quoting of PAN in TDS Returns, penalty u/s 272B can be raised on each default - Whether penalty for wrong mentioning of PAN in TDS returns can be levied even if the deductor has correctly deducted TDS and filed the revised PAN statement. - Revenue's appeal dismissed : PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2012-TIOL-544-ITAT-BANG
M/s United Breweries Ltd Vs ACIT
Income Tax – Sections 14A, 36(1), 37(1) – Whether the Revenue has to verify the claim of the assessee with reference to the earlier records of the assessee in its possession – Whether, disallowance can be sustained when the issue has not been dealt with comprehensively as to whether there be any substance in the claim of the assessee – Whether the nexus between the funds borrowed and their utilization in the business activity of the assessee could not be ascertained in the absence of details as to how the borrowed capital had been utilized exclusively for its business purpose and hence disallowance has to be warranted in respect of financing charges – Whether the amounts written off as bad debts can be allowed as deduction on the ground that such amounts could not be recovered from the parties, viz. trade debtors which had arisen during the course of regular trading activities of the assessee. - Both Revenue's & Assessee's appeal partly allowed : BANGALORE ITAT
2012-TIOL-543-ITAT-MUM
Avista Corporate Finance Advisory Pvt Ltd Vs ITO
Income Tax - Sections 28, 36(1)(vii), 37, 234C - Whether when the advance is given to a customer in the situation of financial instability, the same can be claimed as a deduction in case the advance is written off as irrecoverable. - Assessee's appeal dismissed : MUMBAI ITAT
2012-TIOL-542-ITAT-KOL
DCIT Vs M/s GVN Fuels Ltd
Income Tax - Section 14A, Rule 8D - Whether when the assessee incurs interest expenditure for both trading as well as investment in shares, interest to be disallowed for earning tax exempt income is to be computed on pro-rata basis as per Rule 8D. - Revenue's Appeal dismissed : KOLKATA ITAT
2012-TIOL-541-ITAT-HYD
M/s Conexant Systems Pvt Ltd Vs ITO
Income Tax - Sections 115WE, 143(3), 144C, 292BB - Whether when assessee has consistently challenged the assessment due to non-receipt of notice u/s 143(3) within the statutory period, an assessment order can still be passed by the lower authorities without considering the same - Whether this issue is so germane that it can vitiate the assessment order passed by the AO - Whether AO is always bound to pass a speaking order before disposing off any matter.- Case remanded : HYDERABAD ITAT
CBEC PROMOTION - 2012
CBEC Order 187 of 2012
Kantharaj promoted as DC
CBEC Order 185 of 2012
CBEC promotes 61 ACs as DCs
SERVICE TAX SECTION
2012-TIOL-1381-CESTAT-MUM + Story
Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil SSK Ltd Vs CCE
ST - Bullock-carts prima facie cannot be considered as machinery, equipment or appliances, hence, giving on hire bullock-carts cannot be considered as "supply of tangible goods for use" – Stay petition allowed and matter remanded as Commr(A) had not decided the appeal on merits: CESTAT [paras 6 & 8]:MUMBAI CESTAT
2012-TIOL-1380-CESTAT-DEL
M/s South Eastern Coalfields Ltd Vs CCE
Service Tax - Goods transport operators - Reverse Charge mechanism - Payment of Tax by service receiver for the period 16-11-97 to 02-06-98 - Demand under Section 73 - Notice has been issued invoking Section 73 as it stood prior to the amendment on 10-09-2004 demanding duty for the period 16-11-97 to 02-06-98 from service receivers. Demand not sustainable. (Para 15) - Appeal allowed :DELHI CESTAT
2012-TIOL-1379-CESTAT-BANG
M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, CC & ST
Service Tax – Stay/Pre-deposit of Tax – Demand - There is a clear finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that no conclusive proof of centralized registration at Chennai or Coimbatore including therein the Pallakad unit was produced by the appellants and no proof of discharge of service tax liability in respect of that unit - Even in the present appeal also, there is no categorical submission on the point as well any clear proof of centralized registration claimed by the assessee - Ordered for pre-deposit of Rs.10 Lakhs (Para 3 & 4).:BANGALORE CESTAT
2012-TIOL-1378-CESTAT-BANG
Societe Generale Global Solutions Centre Pvt Ltd Vs CST
Service Tax – Stay / Pre-deposit of Tax – Refund – Information Technology and Software Services - Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit - Commissioner, in his Order-in-Revision held that management consultant services and maintenance or repair services are not input services and accordingly ordered recovery of the refund sanctioned by the original authority – The plea of the appellants is that the maintenance of DG sets is essentially and integrally connected to rendering the business and no export of service can take place if there is no uninterrupted power supply and that the management consultant service was utilized for rendering the business with efficiency and it was prerequisite to render the business efficiently especially to cater to the export market - Held that : prima facie , the contentions raised by the appellants that the impugned services could be treated as 'input services' in respect of services rendered by the appellant appears to be legal – Pre-deposit waived (Para 5).:BANGALORE CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
2012-TIOL-1386-CESTAT-AHM + Story
M/s Ravikiran Plastics Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
Central Excise – Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit – Valuation – Demand of duty by applying the provisions of Rule 10A of the Central Excise (Valuation) Determination of Price of Excisable Goods Rules 2000 – The appellants are manufacturing Air Coolers and Air Cooler Parts and clearing the same to Symphony – Prima facie , the activity is covered under the definition of job work as defined under Rule 10A – The definition of job worker incorporates the words "on behalf of"- In the market no one knows the appellant manufacturers and Air Coolers are recognised as of Symphony only - There is no sale to Symphony nor to anyone else - What the OEMs are doing is nothing but manufacturing on behalf of Symphony - Pre-deposit ordered. : AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2012-TIOL-1385-CESTAT-AHM
M/s MSN Enterprises Vs CCE
CE - Allegation is that M/s MSN Enterprises did not transport the goods from their factory to M/s Balaji Enterprises and M/s Balaji Enterprises have wrongly availed the CENVAT Credit which they have utilized for discharge of duty liability and claimed the rebate – applicant submitting that they did not file any reply or appear before the adjudicating authority and hence seeking a remand - entire issue needs to be gone in detail, which can only be done at the time of final disposal of appeals – Pre-deposit ordered of Rs.1.50 Crores: CESTAT [paras 5, 6, 9 & 10] : AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2012-TIOL-1384-CESTAT-AHM
M/s Atul Ltd Vs CCE
CE - Appellant reversing CENVAT credit availed on courier/telephone services and security services – having accepted their liability interest is required to be paid – on the question of imposition of equivalent penalty, it is to be noted that had the appellant contested the case on merits, they may have succeeded – in such facts and circumstances, the equivalent penalty imposed is unwarranted and is liable to be set aside – appeal allowed to the extent of penalty: CESTAT [paras 8, 9 & 10] : AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2012-TIOL-1383-CESTAT-AHM
M/s Tyco Valves & Controls India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CE - Appellant had a CENVAT Credit of more than Rs.Two Crores from the time the audit party pointed out the ineligible CENVAT Credit of Rs.4,49,426/- - If that be so, visiting the appellant with the penalty under the provisions of Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, seems to be unwarranted as the appellant would not have any reason to utilize the amount as he has enough balance in CENVAT account – interest already paid - penalty imposed u/r 15(2) of CCR, 2004 r/w s. 11AC of the CEA, 1944 is set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [paras 6 & 7] : AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2012-TIOL-1382-CESTAT-BANG
M/s D M Cements Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
Central Excise – Stay/Pre-deposit of Duty – Demand – Mis-declaration of MRP/RSP on the bags of Cement - The reduction of RSP from Rs.250/- to Rs.190/- was with effect from 1.3.2007 - The officers visited the unit on 15.3.2008 - The claim of the appellant is that they were having "huge stock" of HDPE sacks with RSP mentioned as Rs. 250/- but the sacks claim has not been substantiated - They have not indicated as to how much stock of sacks with Rs.250/- as RSP printed was available as on 01.03.2007 - Therefore, the claim that they were having huge unutilized old stock of sacks which were used for more than a year has been rightly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) – Ordered for pre-deposit of Rs. 5 Lakhs (Para 5 & 6).- Pre-deposit Ordered.:BANGALORE CESTAT
CUSTOMS SECTION
NOTIFICATIONS
ctariffadd12_048
Govt imposes anti-dumping duty on melamine import
dgft12not020
Policy for allocation of quota for import of Rough Marble Blocks for Indian companies investing abroad in marble mining, for the year 2012-13.
dgft12pn021
Amendments in Handbook of Procedure, Vol.I Appendices and Aayat Niryat forms.
dgft12cir006
Introduction of electronic Bank Realization Certificate (e-BRC) system.
CASE LAW
2012-TIOL-818-HC-MUM-CUS
Sushil Agarwal Vs CC
Challenging the vires of the retrospective amendment made to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the period prior to 8th April, 2011 could not be gone into by the CESTAT is a prima facie view taken by Tribunal – Appeal dismissed: Bombay HC [para 12]
Customs - Undervaluation - complete unit of car CD Player and car DVD player purchased from the foreign supplier was dismantled abroad by removing the sticker from the cabinet and then packing the cabinet and the front panel separately for shipment to M/s. Chinmay Corporation and M/s. Parth Marketing respectively - Prima facie view of CESTAT that the Appellant was the mastermind behind the import of various goods and that the entire activity of M/s. Parth Marketing and M/s. Chinmay Corporation were controlled and managed by the Appellant through his staff and that the proprietor of M/s. Parth Marketing and M/s. Chinmay Corporation were receiving only monthly compensation for renting/lending their names and the transactions were undertaken by the Appellant cannot be faulted – Pre-deposit ordered of Rs.1 Crore against the Customs duty demand of Rs.3.19 Crore has been rightly made by CESTAT – period extended for payment by eight weeks – Tribunal directed to hear and dispose appeal on merit after pre-deposit is made but without being influenced by the high court order: Bombay HC [paras 11, 13 to 16] . : BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Shahejadkhan Mahebudkhan Pathan Vs State of Gujarat
NDPS: First Time Offenders who are poor - Sentence reduced to 10 years from 15 years: It is projected that both the appellants are first time offenders and there is no past antecedent about their involvement in offence of like nature on earlier occasions. Sentence reduced to 10 years, which is the minimum prescribed sentence under the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act.
Imprisonment of three years in lieu of fine reduced to six months: it was their first offence and if they fail to pay the amount of fine as per the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, they have to remain in jail for a period of 3 years in addition to the period of substantive sentence because of their inability to pay the fine. Serious prejudice will be caused not only to them but also to their family members who are innocent. Default sentence reduced to six months. - Appeals Partly Allowed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RBI CIRCULARS
rbi12cir039
Trade Credits for Imports into India – Review of all-in-cost ceiling
rbi12cir040
External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) Policy – Review of all-in-cost ceiling
MIXED BUZZ
CCI emphasises need for encouraging Competitive practices in public procurement
UN Chief praises France for anti-dealth penalty initiative
Shome Panel for no interest, no penalty in retro amendments affected cases
CIRCULAR
it12cir08
Income Tax Deduction From Salaries during the Financial Year 2012-2013 under Section 192 of The Income Tax Act, 1961
CASE LAWS
2012-TIOL-820-HC-MUM-IT + Story
Smt Rajrani Gupta Vs DCIT
Income Tax – Sections 132, 143(3), 158BA, 158BB(3) – Whether when the assessee actually receives no gifts from NRIs but misdeclares large sums as gifts on capital account, detection of such receipts during a Search is to be treated as undisclosed income - Whether the evidence found during the search can alone be a basis for block assessment – Whether where the gifts received by the assessee are found to be not genuine, then the amounts represented by those gifts become undisclosed income and hence covered under block assessment – Whether the burden of proof is on the assessee in terms of Section 158BB(3) of the Act to satisfy the AO that the so called undisclosed income has already been disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee – Whether mere mentioning of an amount as capital receipt in the Capital Account would not amount to a disclosure of income. - Assessee's appeal dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2012-TIOL-819-HC-P&H-IT
CIT Vs Superintendent Of Police
Income Tax - Sections 139A(5B), 260A, 272B, Rule 46A, 114 B to D - Whether for non/wrong quoting of PAN in TDS Returns, penalty u/s 272B can be raised on each default - Whether penalty for wrong mentioning of PAN in TDS returns can be levied even if the deductor has correctly deducted TDS and filed the revised PAN statement. - Revenue's appeal dismissed : PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
2012-TIOL-544-ITAT-BANG
M/s United Breweries Ltd Vs ACIT
Income Tax – Sections 14A, 36(1), 37(1) – Whether the Revenue has to verify the claim of the assessee with reference to the earlier records of the assessee in its possession – Whether, disallowance can be sustained when the issue has not been dealt with comprehensively as to whether there be any substance in the claim of the assessee – Whether the nexus between the funds borrowed and their utilization in the business activity of the assessee could not be ascertained in the absence of details as to how the borrowed capital had been utilized exclusively for its business purpose and hence disallowance has to be warranted in respect of financing charges – Whether the amounts written off as bad debts can be allowed as deduction on the ground that such amounts could not be recovered from the parties, viz. trade debtors which had arisen during the course of regular trading activities of the assessee. - Both Revenue's & Assessee's appeal partly allowed : BANGALORE ITAT
2012-TIOL-543-ITAT-MUM
Avista Corporate Finance Advisory Pvt Ltd Vs ITO
Income Tax - Sections 28, 36(1)(vii), 37, 234C - Whether when the advance is given to a customer in the situation of financial instability, the same can be claimed as a deduction in case the advance is written off as irrecoverable. - Assessee's appeal dismissed : MUMBAI ITAT
2012-TIOL-542-ITAT-KOL
DCIT Vs M/s GVN Fuels Ltd
Income Tax - Section 14A, Rule 8D - Whether when the assessee incurs interest expenditure for both trading as well as investment in shares, interest to be disallowed for earning tax exempt income is to be computed on pro-rata basis as per Rule 8D. - Revenue's Appeal dismissed : KOLKATA ITAT
2012-TIOL-541-ITAT-HYD
M/s Conexant Systems Pvt Ltd Vs ITO
Income Tax - Sections 115WE, 143(3), 144C, 292BB - Whether when assessee has consistently challenged the assessment due to non-receipt of notice u/s 143(3) within the statutory period, an assessment order can still be passed by the lower authorities without considering the same - Whether this issue is so germane that it can vitiate the assessment order passed by the AO - Whether AO is always bound to pass a speaking order before disposing off any matter.- Case remanded : HYDERABAD ITAT
CBEC PROMOTION - 2012
CBEC Order 187 of 2012
Kantharaj promoted as DC
CBEC Order 185 of 2012
CBEC promotes 61 ACs as DCs
SERVICE TAX SECTION
2012-TIOL-1381-CESTAT-MUM + Story
Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil SSK Ltd Vs CCE
ST - Bullock-carts prima facie cannot be considered as machinery, equipment or appliances, hence, giving on hire bullock-carts cannot be considered as "supply of tangible goods for use" – Stay petition allowed and matter remanded as Commr(A) had not decided the appeal on merits: CESTAT [paras 6 & 8]:MUMBAI CESTAT
2012-TIOL-1380-CESTAT-DEL
M/s South Eastern Coalfields Ltd Vs CCE
Service Tax - Goods transport operators - Reverse Charge mechanism - Payment of Tax by service receiver for the period 16-11-97 to 02-06-98 - Demand under Section 73 - Notice has been issued invoking Section 73 as it stood prior to the amendment on 10-09-2004 demanding duty for the period 16-11-97 to 02-06-98 from service receivers. Demand not sustainable. (Para 15) - Appeal allowed :DELHI CESTAT
2012-TIOL-1379-CESTAT-BANG
M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, CC & ST
Service Tax – Stay/Pre-deposit of Tax – Demand - There is a clear finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that no conclusive proof of centralized registration at Chennai or Coimbatore including therein the Pallakad unit was produced by the appellants and no proof of discharge of service tax liability in respect of that unit - Even in the present appeal also, there is no categorical submission on the point as well any clear proof of centralized registration claimed by the assessee - Ordered for pre-deposit of Rs.10 Lakhs (Para 3 & 4).:BANGALORE CESTAT
2012-TIOL-1378-CESTAT-BANG
Societe Generale Global Solutions Centre Pvt Ltd Vs CST
Service Tax – Stay / Pre-deposit of Tax – Refund – Information Technology and Software Services - Refund of accumulated CENVAT Credit - Commissioner, in his Order-in-Revision held that management consultant services and maintenance or repair services are not input services and accordingly ordered recovery of the refund sanctioned by the original authority – The plea of the appellants is that the maintenance of DG sets is essentially and integrally connected to rendering the business and no export of service can take place if there is no uninterrupted power supply and that the management consultant service was utilized for rendering the business with efficiency and it was prerequisite to render the business efficiently especially to cater to the export market - Held that : prima facie , the contentions raised by the appellants that the impugned services could be treated as 'input services' in respect of services rendered by the appellant appears to be legal – Pre-deposit waived (Para 5).:BANGALORE CESTAT
CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION
2012-TIOL-1386-CESTAT-AHM + Story
M/s Ravikiran Plastics Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
Central Excise – Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit – Valuation – Demand of duty by applying the provisions of Rule 10A of the Central Excise (Valuation) Determination of Price of Excisable Goods Rules 2000 – The appellants are manufacturing Air Coolers and Air Cooler Parts and clearing the same to Symphony – Prima facie , the activity is covered under the definition of job work as defined under Rule 10A – The definition of job worker incorporates the words "on behalf of"- In the market no one knows the appellant manufacturers and Air Coolers are recognised as of Symphony only - There is no sale to Symphony nor to anyone else - What the OEMs are doing is nothing but manufacturing on behalf of Symphony - Pre-deposit ordered. : AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2012-TIOL-1385-CESTAT-AHM
M/s MSN Enterprises Vs CCE
CE - Allegation is that M/s MSN Enterprises did not transport the goods from their factory to M/s Balaji Enterprises and M/s Balaji Enterprises have wrongly availed the CENVAT Credit which they have utilized for discharge of duty liability and claimed the rebate – applicant submitting that they did not file any reply or appear before the adjudicating authority and hence seeking a remand - entire issue needs to be gone in detail, which can only be done at the time of final disposal of appeals – Pre-deposit ordered of Rs.1.50 Crores: CESTAT [paras 5, 6, 9 & 10] : AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2012-TIOL-1384-CESTAT-AHM
M/s Atul Ltd Vs CCE
CE - Appellant reversing CENVAT credit availed on courier/telephone services and security services – having accepted their liability interest is required to be paid – on the question of imposition of equivalent penalty, it is to be noted that had the appellant contested the case on merits, they may have succeeded – in such facts and circumstances, the equivalent penalty imposed is unwarranted and is liable to be set aside – appeal allowed to the extent of penalty: CESTAT [paras 8, 9 & 10] : AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2012-TIOL-1383-CESTAT-AHM
M/s Tyco Valves & Controls India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CE - Appellant had a CENVAT Credit of more than Rs.Two Crores from the time the audit party pointed out the ineligible CENVAT Credit of Rs.4,49,426/- - If that be so, visiting the appellant with the penalty under the provisions of Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, seems to be unwarranted as the appellant would not have any reason to utilize the amount as he has enough balance in CENVAT account – interest already paid - penalty imposed u/r 15(2) of CCR, 2004 r/w s. 11AC of the CEA, 1944 is set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT [paras 6 & 7] : AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2012-TIOL-1382-CESTAT-BANG
M/s D M Cements Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
Central Excise – Stay/Pre-deposit of Duty – Demand – Mis-declaration of MRP/RSP on the bags of Cement - The reduction of RSP from Rs.250/- to Rs.190/- was with effect from 1.3.2007 - The officers visited the unit on 15.3.2008 - The claim of the appellant is that they were having "huge stock" of HDPE sacks with RSP mentioned as Rs. 250/- but the sacks claim has not been substantiated - They have not indicated as to how much stock of sacks with Rs.250/- as RSP printed was available as on 01.03.2007 - Therefore, the claim that they were having huge unutilized old stock of sacks which were used for more than a year has been rightly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) – Ordered for pre-deposit of Rs. 5 Lakhs (Para 5 & 6).- Pre-deposit Ordered.:BANGALORE CESTAT
CUSTOMS SECTION
NOTIFICATIONS
ctariffadd12_048
Govt imposes anti-dumping duty on melamine import
dgft12not020
Policy for allocation of quota for import of Rough Marble Blocks for Indian companies investing abroad in marble mining, for the year 2012-13.
dgft12pn021
Amendments in Handbook of Procedure, Vol.I Appendices and Aayat Niryat forms.
dgft12cir006
Introduction of electronic Bank Realization Certificate (e-BRC) system.
CASE LAW
2012-TIOL-818-HC-MUM-CUS
Sushil Agarwal Vs CC
Challenging the vires of the retrospective amendment made to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the period prior to 8th April, 2011 could not be gone into by the CESTAT is a prima facie view taken by Tribunal – Appeal dismissed: Bombay HC [para 12]
Customs - Undervaluation - complete unit of car CD Player and car DVD player purchased from the foreign supplier was dismantled abroad by removing the sticker from the cabinet and then packing the cabinet and the front panel separately for shipment to M/s. Chinmay Corporation and M/s. Parth Marketing respectively - Prima facie view of CESTAT that the Appellant was the mastermind behind the import of various goods and that the entire activity of M/s. Parth Marketing and M/s. Chinmay Corporation were controlled and managed by the Appellant through his staff and that the proprietor of M/s. Parth Marketing and M/s. Chinmay Corporation were receiving only monthly compensation for renting/lending their names and the transactions were undertaken by the Appellant cannot be faulted – Pre-deposit ordered of Rs.1 Crore against the Customs duty demand of Rs.3.19 Crore has been rightly made by CESTAT – period extended for payment by eight weeks – Tribunal directed to hear and dispose appeal on merit after pre-deposit is made but without being influenced by the high court order: Bombay HC [paras 11, 13 to 16] . : BOMBAY HIGH COURT
No comments:
Post a Comment