CIT Vs. Arthusa Offshore Company (Uttarakhand)- ITAT has erred in law in holding that word ‘tax’ does not include “surcharge” for the purposes of Clause (2) of Article 14 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with USA, and in upholding the decision of the CIT(Appeals), reducing the tax rate applicable to assessee NRC at 60 per cent instead of 65 per cent applied by the AO
A short question which arises for determination in this Special Leave Petition is: whether the High Court was entitled to condone the delay of 16 days in filing the Reference Application by the Commissioner under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
The Principal notification No.4/2005-CUSTOMS, dated the 24th January, 2005 was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (1) vide G.S.R..40 (E), dated the 24th January, 2005.
The principal rules were published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), notification No. 23/2004-Central Excise (N.T.),dated the 10th September,2004,vide number, G.S.R. 600 (E), dated the 10th September 2004, and was last amended by notification No. 48/2008-Central Excise(N.T) dated the 5th December 2008, vide number ,G.S.R. 836 (E) , dated the 5th December 2008.
The Principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide Notification No.36/2001 – Customs (N.T.), dated, the 3rd August, 2001 (S.O.748 (E), dated, the 3rd August, 2001) and was last amended vide Notification No. 131/2008-Customs (N.T.), dated, the 15th December, 2008 (S.O. 2893(E) dated 15th December, 2008).
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
