Goods and Services Tax : The Finance Act, 2025 retrospectively amended Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act after the Supreme Court allowed ITC on certain comm...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court held that liabilities arising from corporate guarantees qualify as financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Inso...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court ruled that a shortfall payment clause in a Deed of Hypothecation can qualify as a contract of guarantee under th...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court expressed serious reservations about earlier rulings denying bail in UAPA cases, holding that smaller benches ca...
Income Tax : The article explains the Supreme Court’s landmark 2024 ruling that broken period interest on debt securities is capital in natur...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court ruled that CoC and RP can surrender financially burdensome assets voluntarily, clarifying moratorium under section 1...
Corporate Law : SC clarifies limits of High Court's writ powers in IBC cases and recognises Indian CIRP as foreign main proceeding in cross-border...
Corporate Law : Justice BR Gavai sworn in as India's 52nd Chief Justice. Focus areas include addressing case pendency and improving court infrastr...
Corporate Law : Key IBC case law updates from Oct-Dec 2024, covering Supreme Court and High Court decisions on CoC powers, resolution plans, relat...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court stayed further proceedings arising from a Section 74 GST order while examining whether writ petitions can be ent...
Finance : The Supreme Court refused relief to borrowers who defaulted from the very first instalment after availing an ₹8.09 crore loan. T...
Finance : The Supreme Court upheld a Will executed in favour of the testator’s sister despite objections from his wife and children. The C...
Income Tax : SC examined nature of amounts received from an AOP and upheld findings that receipts constituted profit share rather than revenue ...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a Delhi High Court ruling that quashed reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A(d...
Corporate Law : The Bill seeks to amend Articles 15 and 16 to allow reservation for backward classes proportionate to their population identified ...
Fema / RBI : RBI directs banks, NBFCs, and other entities to implement Supreme Court’s accessibility guidelines for digital KYC, ensuring inc...
Income Tax : CBDT raises monetary limits for tax appeals: Rs. 60 lakh for ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for Supreme Court, ...
Corporate Law : No restrictions on joint bank accounts or nominations for the queer community, as clarified by the Supreme Court and RBI in August...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court of India introduces new procedures for case adjournments effective 14th February 2024, detailing strict guidelines a...
Many a times the manufacturer of goods (Central Excise assessee) provides other services to the buyer and charges an amount for those services provided. The services may be like transportation of goods to the buyer premises, transit insurance of the goods, interest charges for the credit given to the buyer, Installation of the goods in the buyer’s premises etc. It may happen that cost incurred by themanufacturer assessee in providing these services is much less than what is charged by the manufacturer assessee for these services. The question is whether excess charges collected by the manufacturer assessee should be included in assessable value of the goods under Section 4 of the Act?
The right to Information Act, 2005 declares that the purpose of the Act is to “ promote openness, transparency and accountability in administration and in relation to matters connected therewith”. Thus the Act is fundamental in making the administration transparent and accountable. However, the result can be achieved only if public is aware of their rights and willing to exercise those rights.
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 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,
It may be noted that rod/bar and wire falls under different heading of CETA. It means that the legislature have treated these two products as two distinct and different products. When the legislative intent of the Parliament is clear about treating these two products differently, it cannot be said that they are same products. The above “Test of different heading” was applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lal Woolen and Silk Mills Ltd. V/s CCE, Chandigarh [1999 (108) ELT 7(S.C.)], wherein the Hon’ble SC held,
In the present circumstances there are contradictory judgment of the Hon’ble apex court and in these circumstances judgment of the larger bench should be followed. In Commissioner v/s Aqua Pump Industries [1998 (102) ELT A64], 3 Judge bench of the apex court held that Dharmada amount is not includible in value and hence this decision is a binding precedent should be followed. In view of the above the author is of the view that Dharmada amount is not a part of the assessable value, notwithstanding the Circular of the Board.
The Central Excise duty is leviable on the process of “manufacture”. Any process that brings a new article into existence with different name, character and use is known as manufacturing activity. For levying duty on any article it must satisfy 2 basic conditions that it must be “goods” and should have come into existence as a result of “manufacture”.
Atul Mohan Bindal – assessee filed return of his income for Assessment Year 2002-03 on August 8, 2002 declaring his total income Rs.1,98,50,021/ -. In the assessment proceedings u/s 143, a notice alongwith questionnaire was issued to him by the Assessing Officer on November 29, 2002. Pursuant thereto, assessee attended the assessment proceedings and furnished the requisite details. During the assessment proceedings, it transpired that assessee worked with M/s DHL International( S) PTE Ltd.,Sing
It appears that the appellant had issued a notice under Section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter for short ‘the Act’) for making employer’s contribution towards the employee’s state insurance. The respondent No. 1 Board challenged that notice before the Employees State Insurance Court, Delhi. It appears that neither the workers concerned of the respondent No. 1 Board nor any one of them in representative capacity were made parties in the petition under Section 75 of the Act before the Employees State Insurance Court or before the High Court.
Each of the sub-sections to section 41 deal with different and distinct topics and one cannot read recoupment under one sub-section into another; the depreciation recovered on sale of the capital asset was includible in the total income as balancing charge only under section 41(2); that concept was foreign to the scheme of section 41(1).
