The SC dismissed the appeal of Assessee against the Bombay HC order allowing the customs authorities to charge dues for keeping imported goods in the warehouse beyond the permitted time. The firm had imported capital goods for its unit. The goods were kept in the warehouse under bond. After the expiry of the period, the firm applied for extension of the facility. Meanwhile, the government enlarged the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme to cover agro-based industries. The sugar firm availed of this facility and claimed exemption. The authorities rejected the request. The importer moved the high court, and later appealed to the SC, without success. The SC judgment clarified the benefit of exemption granted under the export promotion scheme would not be available to the firm. It is held that Section 15(1)(b) would be applicable only when the goods are cleared from the warehouse under Section 68 of the Act, i.e., within the initially permitted period or during the permitted extended period. It is trite to say that when the goods are cleared from the warehouse after the expiry of the permitted period or its permitted extension, the goods are deemed to have been improperly removed under Section 72(1)(b) of the Act, with the consequence that the rate of duty has to be computed according to the rate applicable on the date of expiry of the permitted period under Section 61.
The SC held that central excise duty can be levied on furniture permanently fixed to the walls or ground. It set aside the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, which took a contrary view. This Mumbai Company was engaged in interior decoration of luxury hotels. It entered into turn-key contracts with its clients and furniture was part of the work contract. When the revenue authorities demanded excise duty, it protested the woodwork was carried out in the premises of the hotels and they were permanent fixtures. They cannot be removed without causing damage to the goods or cannibalisation. When the contention was rejected, the firm moved the tribunal, which accepted its argument. The excise commissioner appealed to the SC. It quashed the tribunal’s order.
The argument that “controlling interest” was transferred with the shares was not acceptable as the share purchase agreement had been signed by the Power of Attorney (“POA”) holder. In the absence of the copy of the same, which would determine whether
The assessee is a foreign company, having a branch office as well as a subsidiary in India. The assessee decided to close down its branch office and transfer all its assets and liabilities as a going concern to its subsidiary. The assessee adopted C
The state-owned Indian Infrastructure Finance Company Limited (IIFCL), is offering an unique feature for investors in its current infrastructure bond offering that allows an applicant to choose apply for five bonds of the same series or five Bonds ac
