These 18 appeals, by special leave, are directed against he common judgment and order dated September 6, 2007 passed by Calcutta High Court whereby 18 criminal revision applications filed by the appellant for quashing the proceedings initiated by the
This appeal is directed against the Order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] dated 12.05.2006. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs has rejected the refund claim of appellant on the ground of unjust enrichment and failure to challenge the assessment of the Bills of Entry at the appellate stage, without even considering the Essentiality Certificates in the light of specific and binding directions of the High Court. A refund claim under the Act is not an appeal proceeding and the officer considering a refund claim cannot sit in appeal or review an assessment order made by a competent authority. Such assessment order is final unless it is reviewed and/or modified in an appeal. If for any reason, the subordinate authority is of the view that the directions issued by the Court is contrary to statutory provision or well established principles of law, it can approach the same Court with necessary application/petition for clarification or modification or approach the superior forum for appropriate reliefs. In the present case, as we have already noticed, the respondents have not questioned the order passed by the High Court, which order has reached finality. In such circumstances, we cannot permit the adjudicating authority to circumvent the order passed by the High Court.
NOTIFICATION NO. R-40007/REG-RECOVERY/NOTI/04-CCI, DATED 8-2-2011- These regulations may be called the Competition Commission of India (Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty) Regulations, 2011. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
Rahuljee & Company Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Delhi High Court) -The importers who got the goods cleared on the basis of licences purchased by them through one, Gautam Chaterjee and these licences had ultimately turned out to be forged and fabricated licences purported to be issued in the names of different licence holders. – order dated 30th March, 2010 passed by CESTAT confirming the order in Original of the Adjudicating Authority imposing the penalty upon the appellants is sustainable.
Notification No. 7/2011 – Income Tax S.O. It is hereby notified for. general information that the organization Fluorosis Research & Rural Development • Foundation, Delhi has been approved,by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section. 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read with Rules SC and SE of the income-tax Rules, 1962 said Rules), from Assessment Year
INSTRUCTION NO. 75, DATED 7-2-2011. The undersigned is directed to refer to the Instruction No. 67 issued vide letter of even number dated 28th October, 2010 on the subject mentioned above and to say that the last two lines of the same have been modified to read as under:- “that operation of Rule 47(3)(a), (b), (d) and (e) of SEZ Rules, 2006 is kept in abeyance w.e.f. 6.9.2010 until further orders”.
The government must increase the personal income tax exemption limit to at least Rs 3 lakh from Rs 1.6 lakh at present in the upcoming Budget for giving relief to taxpayers from high inflation, majority of CEOs surveyed by industry body Assocham has
India has the highest number of litigations over transfer pricing, where MNCs have been charged of reducing their tax liability by transferring profits to group companies abroad, a survey has found.
The Construction Federation of India has sought service tax exemption for development of power projects, on the lines of other infrastructural works in the upcoming Budget.
Thirty-nine entities, barred from stock markets by Sebi last week for circular trading, may also face inspection by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) for possible anomalies in their balance sheets.
