Payment made by the first respondent/assessee was not voluntary and was forced to make the said payment. In such circumstances, the said payment can only be construed as one made under protest. When once the said conclusion based on the above facts are inevitable, then the second proviso to sub section 1 of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, automatically comes into play.
All these appeals are filed against the order of CESTAT dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant mainly on the ground that the appellant has failed to make payment of predeposit amount of Rs.3 crores as ordered by the CESTAT. Counsel for the appellant hands over the pay order for a sum of Rs.3 crores drawn in the name of S.B.I. Service Tax to Ms. Suchitra Kamble , counsel for the Revenue in compliance of the order passed by the CESTAT. Since the order of the CESTAT regarding pre-deposit is complied with, order passed by the CESTAT dismissing the appeals on 12/11/2010/15/11/2010 is quashed and set aside.
While calculating the interest subsidy, each disbursement may be treated as a separate loan and for each disbursement, subsidy claim may be made for twelve instalments. For loans fully disbursed at one stroke, subsidy will be provided upfront on the entire amount of the loan disbursed. Subsidy has to be calculated for 12 months period from the date of disbursement of the loan following the reducing balance of EMI.
NOTIFICATION NO. SO 301(E), DATED 8-2-2011- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary to grant exemption in the public interest, hereby exempts following classes of companies from disclosing in their profit and loss account the information mentioned under column (3), against each class of companies mentioned under column (2) of the table given below subject to fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in paragraph 2 of this notification namely:-
NOTIFICATION NO. SO 300(E), DATED 8-2-2011- Central Government, being of the opinion that it is necessary to grant exemption in the public interest, hereby exempts Public Financial Institutions as specified under section 4A of the Companies Act, 1956 from disclosing Investments as required under paragraph (1) of Note (1) of Part-I of Schedule VI in their balance sheet subject to fulfillment of the following conditions, namely:-
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 641 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in Schedule XIII to the Companies Act, 1956, namely:—
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.
