|
|
The Tribunal is of the view that the evidence in this case is clear. With respect to the transactions at issue, the appellant has sold articles of jewellery. The witness for the respondent has clearly demonstrated how he executed his audit and what transactions are at issue. With respect to these transactions, even Mr. Shwaid during cross-examination testified that the diamonds were mounted on the settings and that the appellant charged the cost of that work, plus an amount for profit, but that taxes, however, were only remitted on the cost of each component rather than on the sale price of the article of jewellery. Although the appellant may have been told by its customers to charge the loose diamonds and settings separately, this could not waive the appellant's liability under the Act. Paragraphs 23(11)(c) and 43(c) of the Act are identical and read as follows:
|
