Circular No. 7/2011-Customs I am directed to invite your attention to the Board circular No.03/2010-Cus dated 12.02.2010 regarding classification of handicraft and artware items in the Drawback Schedule. The circular clarified that the assessing authorities should normally accept certificates issued by the Development Commissioner (Handicrafts) / EPCH certifying the goods as artware/ handicrafts.
We undertake that the beneficial owner and the person(s) to whom the Offshore Derivative Instrument is issued in compliance with Regulation 15A of SEBI (FII) Regulations. We also undertake that the KYC compliance norms have been followed for the beneficial owner of the Offshore Derivative Instrument.
Government of India, vide notification dated July 9, 2010 permitted IFCI, IDFC, LIC and Infrastructure Finance Companies to issue Long Term Infrastructure Bonds where subscription up to Rs.20,000/? provides tax benefits u/s 80 CCF of the Income Tax A
The Delhi high court has held that the foreign arbitration award in the dispute between US firm Penn Racquet Sports and Indian company Mayor International Ltd was enforceable in this country according to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The awar
Instruction F.No. 609/119/2010-DBK Government of India Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) New Delhi, the 18th January, 2011 To, All Chief Commissioners of Customs / Customs & Central Excise, All Directors General of CBEC/CDR, CESTAT, All Commissioners of Customs / Customs & Central Excise. Sir/Madam, Sub: Progress in the implementation of the Bank Realization Certificate […]
The Supreme Court held recently held in the case of Pushpa @ Leela & Ors. Versus Shakuntala & Ors that the insurance company will be liable to pay compensation for road accident death even if the owner had sold the vehicle so long as his name is the official register. The previous owner might have handed over possession of the vehicle to the buyer, but he and his insurer continued to be liable to pay compensation to third parties if the insurance policy is in his name. In this case, Pushpa vs Shakuntala, the owner sold the truck to another person. But the vehicle was insured by Oriental Insurance Company in the previous owner’s name. There was an accident killing three persons. Their dependents moved the motor accident claims tribunal against Oriental and the previous owner. The tribunal and the Himachal Pradesh high court held that the previous owner had no liability as he was no longer the owner of the vehicle. They ruled that the new owner alone was liable to pay. The dependents appealed to the Supreme Court. The insurance company argued in the Supreme Court that the liability should entirely be that of the new owner as the old owner had lost control of the vehicle after the sale. Reversing this view, the Supreme Court made the insurance company liable to pay the compensation amount.
The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Usha Rectifier Corporation challenging the levy of central excise on products which were used for research and development. The company manufactures electronic equipment. It bought components and assembled them for R & D. The company argued that there was no manufacture of any product which was marketable and therefore it was not liable to pay excise duty. It further contended that the equipment were used within the factory and it was not taken out of factory gates. The item was dismantled within the factory itself. Rejecting the argument, the Supreme Court ruled that “even if the equipment were used for captive consumption and within factory premises, considering that they were saleable and marketable, duty was payable on the goods.” Apart from capitalisation of the manufacturing process in the balance sheet, the company’s assertion that the equipment was meant to save foreign exchange by developing indigenous products, was an admission that the goods were marketable. Such products would be “deemed to have been removed from the factory premises for consumption,” the judgment said.
Service providers under licence from the Airports Authority of India (AAI) have to pay service tax and the liability is not that of AAI, the Supreme Court ruled last week in the case, Sparkway Enterprises vs Commissioner of Central Excise. AAI had entered into a licence agreement with the firm for collecting airport admission charges on behalf of AAI at Calicut airport. The Central Board of Excise and Customs had clarified in 2004 that services provided at airports have to pay service tax. When the authorities demanded service tax from the firm, it refused to pay arguing that it was not permitted to collect service tax from the public and the duty was on AAI. The latter was the principal service provider and the assessee firm was only a collecting agent. Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court stated that according to the licence agreement, the firm was obliged to pay all rates and taxes.
Infrastructure Development Finance Company Limited (IDFC) has announced a public issue of its second tranche of secured, redeemable, long term infrastructure bonds having tax benefits under Section 80CCF of the Income Tax Act, 1961
State-run Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation (IDFC) today said it is looking to come out with a retail bond issue in the next fiscal. IDFC’s second tranche of retail bond issue to raise over Rs 2,900 crore opened today. The issue closes on February 4. The company has already raised Rs 471 crore in the first tranche in September.
