Notification No.55 /2012-Customs (ADD) Seeks to levy anti-dumping duty on imports of Sodium Hydrosulphite, originating in, or exported from People’s Republic of China, for a further period of five years
It has been decided to extend the time up to March 31, 2013 for banks to ensure withdrawal of non-CTS 2010 Standard cheques and replace them with CTS-2010 Standard cheques. However, it may be noted that the residual non-CTS-2010 Standard cheques that get presented in the clearing system beyond this extended period will continue to be accepted for the clearing but will be cleared at less frequent intervals.
G.S.R.889 (E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) and (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), read with rules 18, 20 and 22 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury)
G.S.R. 888(E). – Whereas, in the matter of import of Vitrified Porcelain Tiles (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods), falling under Chapter 69 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the Customs Tariff Act) and originating in, or exported from the People’s Republic of China (China PR) and United Arab Emirates (UAE) (hereinafter referred to as the subject countries), the designated authority, vide its final findings in notification No.37/1/2001-DGAD, dated the 5 th February, 2003 in the original anti-dumping case published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section 1, dated the 5 th February, 2003 had come to the conclusion that—
S.O. ____ (E).– In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise & Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient so to do, hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 36/2001-Customs (N.T.), dated the 3rd August, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S. O. 748 (E), dated the 3rd August, 2001, namely:-
Coal India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Continental & Eastern Agencies (Delhi HC)- In the case reported as (1967) 66 ITR 613 (SC) Ram Laxman Sugar Mills v,Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P. & Ors. the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that it is open to the manager of a joint Hindu Family as representing the family to agree to become a partner with another person. The partnership agreement in that case is between the manager and the other person and by the partnership agreement no members of family, except the manager acquires a right or interest in the partnership. The junior members of the family may make a claim against the manager for treating the income or profits received from the partnership as a joint family asset, but they cannot claim to exercise the rights of partners nor be liable as partners.
My friend’s wife was recently the victim of a chain snatching incident when she was out for an evening walk. Fortunately for her the gold chain around her neck broke and fell on the ground and the thief tried to escape without the chain. She raised an alarm and managed to get the thief nabbed with the assistance of the passersby. Her first reaction afterwards was to let bygones be bygones (since she clearly had not suffered any loss) and the thief had also been thrashed by the on lookers. But as a good citizen she decided to lodge an official police complaint.
Its known to all that the law of amalgamation, mergers & acquisition is little bit complicated and cumbersome. In this write-up an attempt is made to ease the law to reach the readers and to highlight the beauty of the relevant legal provisions.
Basically what the provisions of service tax contained in finance act 1994 lack was the definition of service. What the service actually is? Answer to this question has also became important because now all the services are being taxable except those which has been provided in negative list or are being specifically exempted by way […]
In the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, Karnataka High Court has laid down the following Principles for levy of penalty Under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 :- (a) Penalty under Section 271(l)(c) is a civil liability.
