"13 January 2015" Archive

Issue of Share Certificate and related Provisions

As per FDI Regulations read with FEMA, share must be allotted against share application money received from non-resident within 180 days of its receipt. Whereas, as per section 42(6) of Companies Act, 2013, if Company has received any amount received for the purpose of allotment of shares on Private placement basis then shares must be all...

Posted Under: Company Law |

No processing of returns for I-T refund if selected for Scrutiny

Instruction No.1/2015 13/01/2015

Instruction No.1/2015 Clarification regarding applicability of section 143(1D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Vide Finance Act, 2012, section 143(1D) was introduced in income tax act which prohibited processing of income tax returns in case notice u/s 143(2) has been issued (i.e. scrutiny cases). Ambiguity arose as to whether the said sub-s...

Customs duty cannot be levied on exempt goods merely for non mention of such goods separately in the invoice

Epson India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC (Imp.) (CESTAT Chennai)

Epson India Pvt. Ltd.(the Assessee) imported Inkjet printer with printer software and ink cartridges (impugned goods) under a single Bill of Entry No. 618553 dated April 21, 2004 by classifying them under separate chapter headings and claimed concessional rate of duty...

Posted Under: Company Law |

Import of mobile phones with Original Equipment Manufacturers’ IMEI number is not prohibited under Foreign Trade Policy

The Commissioner of Customs (I&G) Vs. Navshiv Retails Pvt. Ltd. [2015-TIOL-67-HC-DEL-CUS]

Navshiv Retails Pvt. Ltd. (the Assessee) imported branded mobile phones (impugned goods) for which Customs clearance was sought. During examination, it was found by the Department that International Mobile Equipment Identification (IMEI) number of impugned goods...

Posted Under: Company Law |

In remand matters, Dept not entitled to hold deposit made by Assessee during investigation as pre-deposit

Supreme Inds. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik [(2015) 1 TMI 122 - CESTAT Mumbai]

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Nelco Ltd. [(2002) 144 E.L.T. 56 (Bom.)] which was further affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in [(2002) 144 E.L.T. A104 (S.C.)], holding that in case of remand matter, the Department was not entitled to hold on to the amount deposited by th...

Posted Under: Company Law |

Job worker eligible to avail Cenvat credit of differential duty paid under cover of supplementary invoice

Jagatjit Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2015-TIOL-28-CESTAT-DEL]

Jagatjit Industries Ltd. (the Appellant) was the job worker of Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd (Glaxo) and availed Cenvat credit of duty paid by Glaxo, the Principal manufacturer. The Appellant was clearing their final product manufactured on job work basis on payment of duty by utilizing Cenvat credit availed by them....

Posted Under: Company Law |

Assessee can choose most beneficial Exemption Notification where two or more Exemption Notifications are available

Bharat Vijay Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III [(2014) 51 taxmann.com 266 (Ahmedabad - CESTAT)]

Where two Exemption Notifications, one granting absolute unconditional exemption and other granting unconditional partial exemption, is available to the Assessee, the Assessee has an option to opt the Exemption Notification which is more beneficial to him. ...

Posted Under: Company Law |

‘Drawback’ akin to ‘Rebate’, therefore pre-deposit mandatory for filing Appeal only at first stage

The Central Board of Excise and Customs (the Board) vide Circular No.993/17/2014-CX dated January 5, 2015 has issued a clarification on the matter of mandatory pre-deposit of duty and penalty for filing an appeal as was specified in Circular No. 984/08/2014-CX dated September 16, 2014....

Posted Under: Company Law |

No penalty imposable U/s. 77 / 78 of Finance Act,1994 when penalty U/s. 76 thereof was waived on the ground of reasonable cause

In the instant case, Garodia Special Steels Ltd. (the Appellant) paid Service tax under the category of Goods Transport Agency on Reverse Charge basis. However, during the audit of their unit, the reconciliation of ledger accounts with the Service Tax Returns revealed...

Posted Under: Company Law |

Amount paid subsequent to Adjudication Order cannot be hit by Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment

Raasi Refractories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax Hyderabad-III [2015 (1) TMI 283 - CESTAT BANGALORE]

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Bangalore relying on the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara [2006 (205) ELT 458 (Tri.-Mumbai)], held that the amount paid subsequent to the Order of the Adjudication Authority cannot be hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment, and as such, the Appellant is...

Posted Under: Company Law |

Search Posts by Date

February 2024