In a significant case relating to Customs Valuation, a recent judgement dated 26.07.2010 of the Honorable Supreme Court has confirmed the duty demand against a leading importer of Whiskeys, M/s Pernod Ricard India Private Limited (earlier known as Seagram India Private Limited). The case pertains to imports between 1994 and 2001 involving duty evasion of about Rs 40 Crores. M/s Seagram would thus have to deposit this entire amount now. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. In addition finalization of provisional assessments on imports of the goods by M/s Seagram from 2001 is likely to result in significant revenue to the government.
Once section 249(4)(a) is treated as a mandatory condition for filing an appeal before CIT (Appeals) and once that condition stood satisfied at the time of his filing an appeal to CIT (Appeals), then, there was no necessity for the assessee to once again pay the admitted tax due as a condition precedent to his filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under section 253(1)(b).
Even if assessee has disclosed nil income and on verification of the record, it is found that certain income has been concealed or has wrongly been shown, in that case, penalty can still be levied.
No appeal lies to SC u/s 10 of Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 against interlocutory orders passed by Special Court
Where the assessee-bank has instituted recovery suits in Courts against it’s debtors, if individual accounts are to be closed, then the Debtor/Defendant in each of those suits would rely upon the Bank statement and contend that no amount is due and payable in which event the suit would be dismissed.
1. Heard counsel on either side at length. Records perused. 2. Even though both sides had cited several decisions of this Court on the scope and application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but it is neither necessary nor required to deal with those cases in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
The Supreme Court has taken a sagacious view of the criticism of judges while dismissing a contempt of court case against Union Minister Kapil Sibal. In fact, it encourages “fair and reasonable” criticism of judgments as judges are not “infallible”. What provoked the petition was a message the minister had written for a souvenir brought out by a group of lawyers of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1995.
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) was expected to take over the role of the High Court (in dealing with company law matters such as sanctioning of schemes of arrangement, ordering winding up of companies, dealing with petitions for oppression and mismanagement and the like), the Company Law Board (CLB) and the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for speedy disposal of aforesaid matters and avoid multiplicity of litigation before various fora.
Conversion of tarpaulin into `tarpaulin made-ups’ would not amount to manufacture u/s 2(f) of Central Excise Act
The Supreme Court ruled last week that prosecution for issuing a cheque which was dishonoured for want of credit in the bank can be initiated only against the person who issued the cheque and not against the company or directors who were not aware of it.
