Notification No. 40/2009-Service Tax In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 17/2009-Service Tax, dated the 7th July, 2009, G.S.R. 489 (E), dated the 7th July, 2009.
S. 260A permits the filing of an appeal to the High Court within 120 days. In CIT vs. Velingkar Brothers 289 ITR 382 (Bom) (FB), The Full Bench held that the Court had power to condone delay u/s 260A. However, in Hongo India 236 E.L.T. 417 and Chaudharana Steels 238 E.L.T. 705, the Supreme Court held in the context of sections 35H & 35G
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. 144/2009-Customs (N.T.), dated, the 15th September, 2009 (S. O. 2382 (E) dated 15th September, 2009).
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 and sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby appoints the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore to act as a common adjudicating authority to exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on the following adjudicating authorities mentioned in column (3) of the Table below in respect of Show Cause
for the purpose of adjudicating the matters relating to Show Cause Notice pertaining to M/s. Associated Aluminium Industries Private Limited, Survey No. 8, Village; Khutali, Khanvel-Doodhani Road, Near Khanvel, District; Silvassa, Union Territory of Dadar and Nagar Haveli and others, issued vide, F.No. DRI/SRU/INV-12/2006, date 31st January, 2008, by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad.
ACIT Vs M.K. Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore) Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member These two appeals preferred – (i) by the assessee and (ii) another by the Revenue– are directed against the order of the CIT (A), Mysore, for the assessment year 2005-06. ITA NO.401 (By the assessee): 2. The assessee company has raised […]
The new notifications issued under the Advance Authorization, DFIA and EPCG schemes continue to stipulate that the exporter shall submit the proof of discharge of export obligation within the periods specified in the respective notifications. It is needless to stress that the stipulated conditions are required to be adhered to strictly; monitoring mechanism may be put in place and recovery action against defaulters initiated promptly.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), read with rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, the Central Government hereby rescinds the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 109/2004- Customs, dated the 17th November, 2004, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, section 3, sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 751(E), dated the 17th November, 2004, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission.
There are no two opinions that but for the addition of sub-section [4] in section 115JA of the Act and which was conspicuously absent in section 115J of the Act, the ruling of this court and the reasoning and ratio mentioned in KWALITY BISCUITS* case (supraj would conclusively govern the question as the Judgment of this court had come to be affirmed by the Supreme Court in an appeal preferred by the revenue, though by simply dismissing the appeal without any reasons but granting leave and converting the special leave petition into an appeal.
A golden rule of interpretation is the contextual interpretation. A word has always to be interpreted only with the context with which, one is seized. Here we are concerned with the provisions of Sec.40(b) hence, the interpretation has to be done accordingly. Interpretation of the provisions otherwise or the way the Id. AO has done, if accepted, has the effect of rendering the very Explanation 3 totally nugatory or purposeless. Needless to say, that every word used by the legislature, is significant and cannot be lost sight of.
