Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby appoints the Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port-Import), Chennai to act as a common adjudicating authority to exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin for the purpose of adjudicating the matters relating to Show Cause Notice pertaining to M/s TT Enterprises, 95, South Street, Thudaiyur, Sirugambur, (via) Manachallur Taluk, Trichy-621 213 issued vide, F.No. VIII/26/414/2007-DRI, dated the 5th August, 2009, by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai.
Commissioner of Customs (Import), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, Raigad, Maharashtra for the purpose of adjudicating the matters relating to Show Cause Notice pertaining to M/s PFZ Corporation, 108, Shree Krishna Kunj Complex, Vapi Silvassa Road, Imran Nagar, Mehsana Nagar, Vapi, Gujrat and others issued vide, F.No. DRI/AZU/INV-15/2006, dated the 31st January, 2008, by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad.
the Joint Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad for the purpose of adjudicating the matters relating to Show Cause Notice pertaining to M/s. Sarjan, 22 Nalanda Complex, Premchand Nagar Road, Near Mansi Tower, Vastrapur, Naranpura, Ahmedabad and anothers issued vide, F.No. DRI/AZU/INV-08/2009, dated the 4th August, 2009, by the Additional Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad.
the Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, The Mall, Amritsar for the purpose of adjudicating the matters relating to Show Cause Notice pertaining to M/s. Siddharath Oils, B-XXXIII-325/1C, Ashok Nagar, Lalandhar Bye Pass, G.T.Road (West), Ludhiana and others, issued vide, DRI F.No. 856(22)/LDH/2006/Pt-I/710, dated 31st March, 2009, by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi.
the Commissioner of Customs, The Mall, Amritsar, for the purpose of adjudicating the matters relating to Show Cause Notice pertaining to M/s. R.K.Soap and Oil Traders, Near Old Bus Stand, School Road, Tapa Mandi, Sangrur and others issued vide, DRI F.No. 856(22) LDH/2006 Pt-II/717, dated the 31st March, 2009, by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi.
Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby appoints the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai to act as a common adjudicating authority to exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on:- (i) the Commissioner of Customs (EP), New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai; (ii) the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, Uran, Raigad, Maharashtra;
CIT vs. G. R. Shipping (Bombay High Court) :- The assessee, engaged in shipping business, owned a barge which was included in the block of assets. The barge met with an accident and sank on 6.3.2000 (AY 2000-01). As efforts to retrieve the barge were uneconomical, the barge was sold on as-is-where- is in May 2001 (AY 2002-03).
“It is my pleasure to be here today at the 88th annual function of ASSOCHAM. As a representative body of Indian industry and enterprise, ASSOCHAM has always been at the forefront of pursuing ideas that empower Indian entrepreneurs. It has contributed to building consensus on policy response to issues that impact growth of the economy.
Finance Minister has announced that the Government has identified seven critical areas on the Direct Taxes Code for further detailed examination. At an interactive session with representatives of trade and industry from all over the country, here today, Shri Pranab Mukherjee said that the areas identified after interactions with all stakeholders are: The concept of Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) based on gross assets; Capital Gains Taxation in the case of non-residents;
We are of the firm opinion that the present writ petition is liable to succeed with costs. The reasons which have been recorded seeking reopening of the assessment, and as reproduced above show that there is no application of mind by the Assessing Officer which can be said to be the mind of a reasonable person to arrive at a conclusion, which has been arrived at in view of the reasons recorded.
