BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Quality Assured Windows Ltd v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18623 (28 April 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2004/V18623.html Cite as: [2004] UKVAT V18623 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE Reference No: MAN/03/790
QUALITY ASSURED WINDOWS LIMITED Appellant
and
THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents
Tribunal Chairman: Mr R Barlow
Sitting in public in Manchester on the 26 March 2004
DIRECTION
under Rule 30(8)
This appeal against a decision of the Respondents with respect to surcharge assessments dated the 8 July 2003 and 12 September 2003 in the sums of £1336.56 and £1863.44 and being reasonable excuse appeals as defined by rule 2 of the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 as amended coming on for hearing this day
And upon hearing Mr W Crombleholme for the Appellant and Mr B Haley of the Solicitor's office of HM Customs and Excise for the Respondents
And this tribunal having heard this appeal and having announced its decision
And the Appellant and the Respondents by their said representatives stating pursuant to the rule 30(8) of the said Rules as amended that they do not require the said decision to be recorded in a written document in accordance with rule 30(1) of the said Rules
This tribunal finds that the Appellant does have a reasonable excuse for the default which resulted in the Respondents making the assessment under appeal dated 8 July 2003 but does not have a reasonable excuse for the default which resulted in the Respondents making the assessment under appeal dated 12 September 2003.
And this tribunal directs that this appeal is allowed in respect of the first default and dismissed in respect of the second default but the amount due as a surcharge in respect of the second default is reduced to £228.44 as a result of the removal of the first default.
And that there is to be no direction as to costs
MR R BARLOW
CHAIRMAN
Release Date:
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004
