Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut- II Vs. M/s. Sundstrand Forms Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- We have a recent decision of this Court in the case of Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Daman, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 601. This Court in the said decision has very carefully considered almost all the previous decisions of this Court on the issue of the levy/payment of Excise Duty Valuation on articles manufactured by the assessee company therein. After referring to practically all the decisions on the issue this Court in the aforesaid case held that the consistent view of this Court is that the marketability is an essential criteria for charging duty and that the test of marketability is that the product which is made liable to duty must be marketable in the condition in which it emerges.
Air Liquid North India Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner Central Excise (Supreme Court of India)- Relabelling would not mean mere fixing of another label. When the appellant was selling different cylinders with different marking or different certificates to its different customers, we can say that the appellant was virtually giving different marks or different labels to different cylinders having different quality and quantity of gas. It can be very well said that the Helium purchased by the appellant was in a marketable state but it is equally true that by giving different treatment and purifying the gas, the appellant was manufacturing a commercially different type of gas or a new type of commodity which would suit a particular purpose. Thus, the treatment given by the appellant to the gas sold by it would make a different commercial product and, therefore, it can surely be said that the appellant was engaged in a manufacturing activity.
`Self-Assessment’ has been introduced in Customs vide Finance Act, 2011. Further, it has been made mandatory for importers and exporters to file declarations electronically. These changes necessitated a re-look at the extant regulations / forms. Accordingly, draft ‘Bill of Entry (Electronic Declaration) Regulations, 2011’ and draft ‘Shipping Bill (Electronic Declaration) Regulations, 2011’ have been prepared by CBEC and are attached herewith as Annexure – ‘X’ & ‘Y’ respectively.
Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Vs ADIT (International Taxation)- It is held that the turnkey contract is not divisible and therefore, the offshore supply and offshore services can be attributed to the Indian permanent establishment; as the project office was opened for coordination and execution of project, the same is held to be a fixed place PE.
CIT Vs Surya Herbal Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters.
Asso tech Super Tech (J.V.) Vs. State of Uttarakhand- Petitioner’s case is that he is not constructing the dwelling units on behalf of anyone else and the same is undertaken by the petitioner on his own behalf.
Six years after a senior income tax assistant was caught accepting a bribe of Rs 500, a special CBI court on Wednesday sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment. Vijay Karekar was arrested by the CBI on October 17, 2005, on charges of accepting the bribe from a person, an income tax assessee, for clearing his tax refund order.
The Cost Accounting Standards Board Secretariat has prepared a revised Guidance Note on CAS-4. It has been decided to expose the same for the public comments. The proposed Exposure Draft may be modified in light of comments received before being issued in the final form.
NOTIFICATION No. 69 (RE-2010)/2009-14 The annual quota for import of marble from Bhutan will now be 5,882 MTs. Previously it was 1847 MTs.
ORDER NO. 7/FT&TR/2011 [F.NO.500/15/2011-FT&TR-I], DATED 1-9-2011 In partial modification of Order No. 6/FT&TR/2011, dated 24-8-2011 and in exercise of powers conferred under section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Board hereby reconstitutes the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) comprising of three Commissioners of Income-tax/Directors of Income-tax as Members of DRP-II, Mumbai, who shall perform such duties in addition to their regular duties with immediate effect and until further order:
