As you are aware, RTGS and NEFT are two important pan-India payment systems introduced by Reserve Bank of India keeping in mind the requirements of various customers in the wholesale and retail payment systems segment. Both these systems have distinct objectives and unique features in terms of the time criticality of payments, threshold value of transactions, mode of settlement etc. As such, the charges levied for transactions in the two systems are also different. The customers in turn, should be empowered to exercise the choice between these two systems depending upon their requirements.
Notification No.75 /2011-Customs – Date- 12th August, 2011 G.S.R. (E). -In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and sub-section (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) read with rules 18 and 20 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 makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue),
Notification No.74 /2011-Customs, Date- 12th August, 2011 – G.S.R. (E). – Whereas, the designated authority vide notification No. 15/10/2010-DGAD, dated the 22nd June, 2010, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section 1, dated the 22nd June, 2010, had initiated review, in terms of sub-section (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and in pursuance of rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules),
Tariff Values of Edible Oils, Brass Scrap (All Grades) and Poppy Seeds Notified Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC), Department of Revenue has issued a Notification No.57/2011-Customs (N.T.) dated August 12, 2011 and thereby notifying tariff values of edible oils, brass scrap (all grades) and Poppy seeds as shown in the table below.
Peico Electronics & Electricals Ltd Vs CIT (Kolkata High Court)- We are of the opinion that the term ‘loss’ as occurring in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 205 (1) of the Companies Act has to be understood and read as the amount arrived at after taking into account the depreciation. Then alone the formula prescribed in this clause would make sense and it would be consistent with the object sought to be achieved by enacting Section 115-J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If loss were to be taken as pre-depreciation loss then the resultant computation will not be in conformity with the tenor of the provisions of Section 205. The language of clause (b) of the proviso to Section 205 (1) is clear.
Circular No. 36/2011-Customs In terms of the provisions of para 6.12 (f) of FTP announced on 31.8.2004, exemption was granted for 100% EOUs from furnishing bank guarantee at the time of import or going for job work in DTA subject to certain prescribed conditions to be followed by the unit. These conditions are that (i) the unit has a turnover of Rupees 5 crores or above; (ii) unit is in existence for at least three years; and (iii) unit is having an unblemished track record. Accordingly, this was implemented by issue of instructions vide para 19 of the aforesaid Board’s Circular No. 54/2004-Customs. Circular No. 36/2011-Customs
CCE Versus RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd. – Supreme Court – There was no mistake apparent on record when the CESTAT did not accept a submission of the respondent-assessee to the effect that the officer appointed to value the goods manufactured by asessee should not have been engaged as a cost accountant. CESTAT exceeded its powers and it tried to re-appreciate the evidence and it reconsidered its legal view taken earlier in pursuance of a rectification application. In our opinion, the CESTAT could not have done so while exercising its powers under Section 35C(2) of the Act, and, therefore, the impugned order passed in pursuance of the rectification application is bad in law and, therefore, the said order is hereby quashed and set aside.
C.C.E., Mangalore Vs M/s. Pals Micro systems Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- The department could not establish that there was any suppression of facts or a fraud on the part of the respondent- assessee. We find that the honest mistake committed in maintenance of stock register etc. was frankly admitted by the Managing Director of the respondent-assessee. There is no finding to the effect that there was a fraud or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Thus, it is very clear that the notice was issued after expiry of the period of limitation.
CCE Vs M/s. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- The statements were recorded by the Central Excise Officers and they were not police officers. Therefore, such statements made by the Managing Director of the Company and other persons containing all the details about the functioning of the company which could be made only with personal knowledge of the respondents and therefore could not have been obtained through coercion or duress or through dictation.
When asked to recall the moment when he first became millionaire in real life, Big B said, ‘I don’t remember the time when I became a ‘crorepati’. I have never paid that much attention to it I was more focused on my work that is acting. But I guess officials from the income tax department might know about it.”
