I-T- Truck operators if not truck owners, cannot be considered as sub contractors for purpose of Section 194C(2) of Act : HC

I-T - Diversion of income arises when transaction is not at arm's length & sale or purchase price is artificially inflated so as to cause undue advantage: HC

I-T - Expenditure incurred in connection with transfer of a capital asset as per section 48(i) of the Act & is allowable : ITAT

I-T - Additions framed u/s 68 are sustainable where assessee sufficiently established identity, capacity and genuineness of transactions with creditors : ITAT

CX - Unless and until there is corroborative evidence to support allegations of providing raw material by appellant to main manufacturer without discharging liability, alleged guilt cannot be confirmed against appellant: CESTAT

ST - In absence of satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner to effect that the burden of tax paid and claimed as refund has not been further passed on, matter referred back to the original authority: CESTAT

2022-TIOL-254-HC-AHM-CUS

Besto Tradelink Ltd Vs Pr.CC

Cus - The Customs Department has not permitted the applicant to clear the goods said to have been imported from Abu Dhabi (Saudi Arabia) from bonded warehouse - The goods are in the form of Manganese Ore - Case of Department is that there are reasons to believe that the goods have not been imported from Saudi Arabia but those have been imported from Pakistan - Till this stage, there has been no seizure of goods under Section 110 of Customs Act - If there would have been a seizure, then probably the applicant could also have moved an application for provisional release of goods under Section 110-A of Customs Act - Regulation 2 of Regulations 1963 would come into play when the proper officer on account of any of grounds specified in Sub-section 1 of Section 18 of Customs Act is not able to make a final assessment of duty on the issue of imported goods - Section 18 of Customs Act provides for provisional assessment of duty - Delhi High Court in case of Spirotech Heat Exchangers Pvt. Ltd. 2016-TIOL-344-HC-DEL-CUS directed to release the goods subject to petitioner executing a bond in a sum equivalent to 100% value of goods and further furnishing security in form of bank guarantee for a sum equivalent to 30% of differential duty - Court awaits the report as regards the inquiry which has been undertaken by DRI - If something found credible in report on basis it could be said that the apprehension expressed by Department as regards import of goods from Pakistan is well founded, then applicant may put to certain terms and conditions for the purpose of release of goods - Otherwise, court may order provisional release subject to applicant furnishing a bond of amount equivalent to 200% of duty which is leviable on such goods: HC

- Matter listed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2022-TIOL-155-CESTAT-DEL

Kailash Traders Vs CCE

CX - Assessee is an appeal against impugned order vide which penalty of Rs. 2 lakh has been imposed - Adjudicating authority below has based its findings upon that the entries recovered from premises of appellant to have not been disputed by appellant and there has already been judgement in favour of Department - Perusal of said judgment shows that the judgement is absolutely silent about any evidence produced by Department against appellant - It appears that the decision is result of fact that the principal manufacturer is involved in clandestine removal of excisable goods and appellant being the commission agent, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that appellant would not have been involved in said clandestine removal - Presumptive decision in absence of any evidence may not be accepted that too when there has been subsequent decisions of Tribunal based upon the directions of decision of Apex Court in case of R A Castings Pvt. Ltd wherein it has been held that the appellant is merely commission agent; and that unless and until there is corroborative evidence to support the allegations of providing raw material by appellant to the main manufacturer without discharging liability, the alleged guilt, cannot be confirmed against appellant - The entire record does not reveal any evidence or document produced by Department to reflect or to prove the same - No reason found to differ with the decision of Tribunal of year 2018 which have been passed under the directions of Apex Court - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT

2022-TIOL-154-CESTAT-MUM

Sneh Girls Hostel Vs CCGST & CE

ST - Appellant has in the initial stage issued invoices claiming service tax payable from their client and have also deposited the same with exchequer - By way of this application, they seek the refund of same - However, as is evident from the decisions of Apex Court in Mafatlal Industries 2002-TIOL-54-SC-CX-CB and Addisson & Co 2016-TIOL-146-SC-CX-LB that there can be no refund except for in the manner provided by Section 11B, i.e. without Assistant Commissioner recording his satisfaction to effect that the burden of tax paid and claimed as refund has not been further passed on - In absence of any such satisfaction, matter referred back to the original authority for consideration of refund claims in light of these decisions and also the decision of Apex Court in case of ITC Limited 2019-TIOL-418-SC-CUS-LB - S ince the issue in relation to refund claim, filed nearly four years ago, original authority should decide the claim within three months: CESTAT

- Matter remanded: MUMBAI CESTAT