Keeping in view of the difficulties pointed out by the various Members of CESTAT, Bar Association, and in order to clear heavy pendency, it is proposed to bring about the following amendments in the Cause list of all CESTAT, Benches with effect from 5th September, 2011 onwards.
F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC Reduction of Government litigation – providing monetary limits for filing appeals by the Department before CESTAT/High Courts and Supreme court – Regarding – In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act,1994 and Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962 the Central Board of Excise & Customs (hereinafter referred to as the Board) fixes the following monetary limits below which appeal shall not be filed in the Tribunal, High Court and the Supreme Court:
Hon’ble Members are aware that after extensive consultations and discussions, including deliberations in a Joint Drafting Committee and a meeting of all political parties represented in Parliament, the Government has introduced a Bill in the Lok Sabha on the setting up of Lok Pal. The Bill has been referred to the Standing Committee concerned. Notwithstanding the introduction of the Bill, Shri Anna Hazare and his supporters have persisted with their demand that the Jan Lok Pal Bill drafted by Shri Anna Hazare should be introduced in Parliament and that the Jan Lok Pal Bill should be the Bill that must be passed by Parliament. In support of this demand, Shri Anna Hazare had announced some time ago that he would undertake an indefinite fast beginning August 16, 2011.
During the past few days, I had extensive deliberations and meaningful discussions in the Board with my colleagues in the CBDT on the way forward. The mandate before us is for a substantive improvement in all areas of common concern coupled with use of technology and innovation to boost revenue resources and to take the department forward towards the realization of our Vision Statement. Our Revenue Collection target for the present fiscal stands at over Rs. 5.32 lakh crores which has been increased by 10% by the Hon’ble FM. I would like to call upon every member of the Aayakar Parivar to take on the call of duty and put in their best efforts for the attainment of the revised target. I know it is difficult, however nothing is impossible and I am confident that the officers will rise to the occasion.
ACIT Vs Bank Of India (ITAT Mumbai)- As per the provisions of section 115JAA(2), the amount of tax credit of MAT to be carried forward is determined and it is not provided therein that first the taxes paid are to be adjusted and then credit of MAT is to be given. In the case of Chemplast Sanmar, cited supra, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal has held while deciding he issue u/s.234B and 234C that the tax credit u/s.115JA(2) is advance tax retained by the Department for being set off against the tax liability of future years. We are in agreement with the ld. CIT that the assessee is entitled for interest u/s.244A on the refund given to it. We are also of the view that it was a mistake which could be rectified u/s. 154. So from this is is clear that MAT credit has to be given right at the beginning and if ultimately the calculation leads to a refund, then such interest has to be paid u/s.244A.
ITO V/s. Tropicana Beverages Company (ITAT Delhi)- When it is established that the machinery on which depreciation has been claimed by the assessee, had been provided by the assessee to Dynamix for the purpose of manufacturing the product of the assessee, necessarily the machinery was used for the purpose of the business of the assessee. That being so, ‘used for the purposes of the business’ in section 32 of the Act is applicable to the assessee.
DCIT, Kolkata Vs Sushma Devi Agarwal (ITAT Kolkata)- Assessee has failed to establish that disclosure of additional income in the revised return by way of declaring G. P. rate at 15% as against 6.93% shown in return filed u/s. 153A of the Act was voluntary and in good faith to buy peace with the department. On the other hand, the assessee filed the revised return only after the concealment was detected by the AO and he confronted the assessee with the same. In such circumstances, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Ps.14,61,678/- for concealment of income has rightly been levied by the A.O.
The government has decided vide Notification No.76/2011-Customs -Dated the 17th August, 2011 to continue imposing anti-dumping duty of up to $ 515.94 per tonne on imports of a chemical from China, used in industries like pharmaceuticals and dyeing, for five more years to protect domestic industry. The restrictive duty on Sodium Nitrite, which is also used in the meat processing and textile sectors, was initially imposed in 2006. The anti-dumping duty imposed shall be levied for a period of five years (unless revoked, superseded or amended earlier).
In a significant order, the Bombay high court has set aside a decision of the Maharashtra government refusing to offer job on compassionate ground to a daughter of an employee, who died in harness. The state argued that a Government Resolution allowed only unmarried daughters, wife and son of a deceased government servant to get employment. However, the family of the deceased argued that the daughter was unmarried at the time of applying for job but got married later.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided to hear the Centre’s plea seeking recall of its order for setting up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising its retired judges to take over the probe into all black money cases. A three-judge bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir posted the recall application of the Centre for Wednesday for hearing.
