Section 14 of the Central Excise Act and Section 108 of the Customs Act empower officers to summon person, ask questions from persons summoned and record their statement. These statements are legally admissible as evidence in various judicial and quasi-judicial proceeding. Further the persons summoned are legally required to state the truth. These Sections imposes legal duties on the persons summoned, and have wide ranging legal implications, the authors are of the view that the persons summoned under these sections must have a right to consult a legal practitioners of choice at the time of recording of these statements. However the settled position of law is against the view of the authors.
The Supreme Court held in Poolpandi that a person being interrogated under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act or under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not an accused nor can he plead that there is a possibility of being made an accused in future. Hence, he has no right to ask for his advocate presence during enquiry. The whole logic of this judgment fails when the first question is asked from a person summoned, an answer of which is likely to implicate the person summoned in any offence.
The Central Excise law prescribes a time and procedure to pay the duty. When some amount is paid not as per that procedure or at time different from the time of payment of duty, such payment cannot be treated as duty paid under Central Excise. The issue was decided by the Gujrat High Court in Parle International Ltd. V/s VOI [2001 (127) ELT 329 (Guj.)], wherein the Hon’ble Court held that,
There was a demand against the company. The duty demand was confirmed against which the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal). In the meantime, the assessee deposited the amount vide debit entry in RG23A part-II. When the appeal was decided in the favour of the assessee, the assessee informed to the department and took credit of the amount it deposited earlier. Demand was raised, and the tribunal held that such re-credit of amount is recoverable and imposed penalty on the assessee.
CA. Roy was born on 4th October, 1963 and became the youngest President of the ICAI in the year 1998-99 at the age of 34. He was elected to the Central Council for the first time for the term 1995-98 and was elected as the Vice President in the first term itself. He served the Council for two terms from 1995 to 2001. Prior to that, he was elected to the Eastern India Regional Council for the term 1992-95. During his tenure in the EIRC which he served for one term, he served as its Secretary, Vice Chairman and Chairman.
THE much-awaited order of the Karnataka High Court on the question of liability to deduct tax at source on payments made to non-residents for the purchase of software to be used in business is finally out. The order passed on 24th September, 2009 was made available only on 17th November, 2009.
Please refer to our circulars UBD.CO.BPD. (PCB) No. 32/09.39.000/2007-08 dated February 25, 2008 on Know Your Customer (KYC) Norms/ Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Standards/Combating of Financing of Terrorism and UBD.CO. BPD. (PCB) No. 1/12.05.001/2008-09 dated July 02, 2008 on Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 –Obligation of banks in terms of Rules notified there under.
New Delhi: Accounting regulator, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), is planning to introduce a three-month mandatory training course for its students who pass the chartered accountancy and accounting technician examination every year. This would mean that a student after qualifying three year chartered accountancy course and one year accounting technician course will have to undergo an additional three months training programme.
The draft Direct Tax Code Bill, 2009 (DTC or Code) was released for public comments by the Government of India (Government) on 12 August 2009. The stated objective of the DTC is to establish an economically efficient, effective and equitable direct tax system which will facilitate voluntary compliance and reduce the scope for disputes and minimize litigation.
This articles summarizes a recent ruling of the Larger Bench (LB) of the Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) [2009-TIOL-692-ITAT-MUM-LB] in the case of M/s B.T. Patil & Sons Belgaum Construction Pvt. Ltd.(Taxpayer) v. ACIT. Due to contradictory views expressed by the two-member bench of the ITAT, an LB was constituted to examine the issue of whether the Taxpayer, who is engaged in executing construction contracts for and on behalf of the Government/statutory bodies, is eligible for tax holiday under the Indian Tax Law (ITL).
