S.O. (E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby imposes on the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner of Customs (Import), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, Raigad,
S.O. (E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby imposes the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Sarda House, Bedi Bunder Road, Jamnagar, to exercise the powers and discharge the duties as adjudicating authority over the powers and duties exercisable by –
S.O. (E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby imposes the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, Raigad, Maharashtra, to ex
S.O. (E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby imposes on the Joint Commissioner or Additional Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, to act as a common adjudicating authority to exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on –
The first reason assigned by the Director for denying registration to the assessee under section 12A was that the object of the assessee are not for the benefit of general public but for specific members viz., benefit of companies who are engaged in commercial activities to improve their production or profitability. Section 2(15) defines charitable purpose to include relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the advancement of any other object of general public utility.
These two cross appeals – one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue – arise out of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 05.08.2010 in relation to the assessment year 2007-2008. Since common issues are raised in these appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
It was found from the assessment order for assessment year 1985-86 and from the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the assessee had made payments to schools other than those promoted by it which fact has not been discussed either in the Order of ITAT or in the Order of the High Court.
In this case, there is no dispute that even though the bill is in the name of company C/o employee’s name, the payment for the service has been made by the company only. I also find that the submission of the appellant that employee’s name was put for internal purpose is also reasonable since the company has to know who is utilizing the telephone so that they can monitor the utilization and also ensure that phone is not misused.
On a plain reading of Rule 5A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, the said Rule does not empower the CAG to audit the accounts of any assessee. While Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5A provides for access of any officer authorized by the Commissioner to any premises registered under the service tax Rules, for carrying out any scrutiny, verification or check, as may be necessary to safeguard the interest of revenue, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5A only casts an obligation on the assessee to make the records and documents as specified in the said Rule available to the officer authorized by the Commissioner, or the audit party deputed by the Commissioner or the Comptroller and Auditor General of India within a reasonable time not exceeding 15 working days from the date of demand.
Examination Department of the Institute would like to avail the services of the members of the Institute (upto 15 years of Experience) to act as Checker for totaling etc. of marks awarded by examiner, other details are as under:
