I-T - Re-assessment cannot be resorted to where AO relies on same material available at the time of original assessment : HC

I-T - If amount is obliterated from books of accounts by reducing corresponding loans & advances on asset side, then same would amount to write off: HC

I-T - Indexation of cost of acquisition under 2nd proviso to Sec 48 should be available from F.Y 1981-1982: HC

I-T - Exemption u/s 11(2) cannot be denied merely due to lack of declaration in Form No. 10 regarding specific purpose for which funds are being accumulated by assessee trust : ITAT

I-T - When interest has been disallowed in past AYs and raises no loans are raised during current AY, deduction is allowable u/s 57 : ITAT

GST - Suspension of registration - SCN is bereft of any reason or fact, hence quashed - Commissioner directed to issue practice direction so as to avoid such gaffe: HC

GST - Attachment - Every provisional order ceases to have effect after expiry of one year - Revenue to defreeze bank account and release immovable properties within 3 days: HC

GST - ITC account unblocked after two years although law mandates only a one year period - Petitioner presses for grant of interest - Revenue to file reply-affidavit: HC

2022-TIOL-220-HC-DEL-GST

Shakti Shiva Magnets Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner

2022-TIOL-219-HC-DEL-GST

Karamjit Jaiswal Vs Commissioner of Central Taxes GST Delhi East

2022-TIOL-218-HC-DEL-GST

Fides Distribution Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST

2022-TIOL-144-CESTAT-CHD

CC Vs RRK Import Export

Cus - Revenue is in appeal against impugned order wherein the Commissioner (A) has reduced redemption fine and penalty has been set aside - The quantity declared by assessee in weight and there is no variation on weight of consignment and there is no allegation in SCN for misdeclaration of quantity - The charge of misdeclaration of quantity is rightly dropped by Commissioner (A) - Declared price has been accepted by assessee on which they have paid differential duty therefore, considering the duty paid by assessee and margin of profit, Commissioner (A) has rightly reduced the redemption fine - Further, Commissioner (A) recorded the finding that there is no finding given by adjudicating authority for imposing penalty under Section 117 of the Act - Commissioner (A) has rightly dropped the penalty against assessee - No infirmity found in impugned order, same is upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2022-TIOL-143-CESTAT-CHD

Kangaro Industries Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - Appellant applied for fixing of special rate under Notfn 1/2010-CE - They are engaged in manufacture of staple strips - As per Sl.No.19 of Table in para 2 of said notfn, value addition has been fixed at 36% for said goods - During examination of claim of appellant for fixing special rate, dispute arose on two issues viz.; whether net excise duty paid and not the total amount of duty paid is required to be deducted from sale value of goods and whether freight outward is not to be deducted from sale value since as per explanation given in Para 6 (5) of Notfn, only excise duty, value Added Tax and other indirect taxes are required to be excluded - These are periodical SCNs issued to them and for earlier period in appellant's own case by Tribunal in 2018-TIOL-416-CESTAT-CHD has dealt the issue and held that appellant is entitled for refund claim - When an amount of duty is refunded to appellant, under Notfn 1/2002-CE, same has to be deducted from excise duty paid by appellant while arriving at actual value addition - In the context of Section 4(3)(C) when the goods are on FOR destination sales and the freight is paid by seller and the goods are to be insured by seller, then seller cannot claim deduction of freight and insurance from sale price - Tribunal agrees with its own order passed for earlier period, therefore, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2022-TIOL-142-CESTAT-DEL

Darvesh Enterprises Vs CCE

ST - The order of adjudicating authority was received by appellant on March 15, 2015 but the appeal was presented before Commissioner (A) on July 02, 2015 - It was clearly not presented within period of two months nor within the extended period of one month - The Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeal after placing reliance on decision of Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises 2007-TIOL-231-SC-CX - The provision of section 35 of CEA, 1944 relating to appeals before Commissioner (A) had come up for consideration before Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises 2007-TIOL-231-SC-CX - Section 35 provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act, may appeal to Commissioner (A) within sixty days from the date of communication to him of such decision or order provided that Commissioner (A) may, if he is satisfied that appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting appeal within aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of thirty days - The provisions of section 35 of CEA, 1944 are pari materia with section 85(3A) of Finance Act - The Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises held that the period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is limited by proviso to sub-section (1) of section 35 and the position is crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of thirty days after expiry period of sixty days - Appellate authority can entertain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days beyond the normal period for preferring the appeal, which is 60 days - Commissioner (A), therefore, did not commit any illegality in dismissing the appeal: CESTAT

- Appeal dismissed: DELHI CESTAT