Government of India Ministry of Finance Commissioner of Customs, NS-Audit Jawaharlal Nehru Custom I-louse Nhava Sheva, Tal: Uran. Dist: Raigad. Maharashtra-400 707 F.No. S2-PCA-Gen-101/2018-19/JNCH Pt. III Date: 07.09.2022 Standing Order No. 11/2022-23 Sub.: Implementation of RMS for processing of Duty Drawback claims. -Reg. CBIC has issued Circular No. 15/2021-Cus dated 15/07/2021, regarding the above-mentioned subject. […]
The guarantees provided under the respective schemes should comply with the requirements for credit risk mitigation in terms of paragraph 7.5 of the Master Circular on Basel III Capital Regulations dated April 1, 2022 which inter alia requires such guarantees to be direct, explicit, irrevocable and unconditional
Presently, listed companies shall submit all corporate announcements using DSC except Outcome of Board meeting which includes only financial result
HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) A show cause notice dated 24.01.2020 was then issued to the appellant proposing to revoke the Customs Broker License of the appellant by considering the show cause notice dated 22.10.2019 issued under the provisions of the Customs Act as the offence report. The appellant […]
Nakoda Ispat Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi) Division Bench of this Tribunal in Parle Agro Limited, wherein the amount was deposited during the stage of investigation/audit, this Tribunal have held that on being successful in appeal, interest is allowable under Section 35FF from the date of deposit till the date of refund. Further, […]
Applicant No. 1 had filed an application before the Andhra Pradesh State Screening Committee on Anti-Profiteering under Rule 128 of the CGST Rules,2017 and alleged that Respondent had not passed on the benefit of the input tax credit by way of commensurate reduction in price
Ours being a Welfare State, the respondents who happen to be instrumentalities of the State under Article 12, cannot act arbitrarily or unreasonably whilst considering the claim of citizens for the grant of State largesse.
A drawer who signs a cheque and hands it over to the payee, is presumed to be liable unless the drawer adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque has been issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. The presumption arises under Section 139.
Ernst And Young U.S. LLP Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court) Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that when the original proceeding has been completed under Section 143(1), there is no need for fresh tangible material for reopening the assessment and the doctrine of change of opinion does not arise since under Section 143(1) […]
Shanu Events Vs State of U.P (Allahabad High Court) Perusal of the e-way bill reveals, the petitioner made an inadvertent error in applying for the e-way bill. After mentioning the place of shipment to ‘Kumbh Mela, Haridwar, Uttarakhand’, the words ‘Madhya Pradesh – 483501’ were filled up. The address having been thus wrongly filled up […]
