Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Suraj Medical Agencies Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh

Clandestine manufacture and clearance of medicaments - pre-deposit of penalty imposed upon them under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - stay demand - Held that:- All the four noticees are directly involved in the illegal manufacturing and clearance of the medicines. In the interest of the Revenue, some terms need to be imposed upon them especially when the main accused M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. has defaulted in making the pre-deposit as ordered by this Bench and also con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, Sh. Kashmir Chand and Sh. Ashok Kumar. Thus the balance of convenience is in the favour of the Revenue for imposition of penalty on these persons. Accordingly I differ with the findings recorded by learned Member (Judicial).

And to avail the facility to hear the appeals, it is necessary that all these appellants M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies, Sh. Roshan Lal Kawatra, Sh. Kashmir Chand and Sh. Ashok Kumar are directed to deposit 50% of the penalty imposed upon them by the Commissioner u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Negi, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - It is seen that vide Stay Order Nos. 55665-55669/2013, dated 10-1-2013, stay petitions of the present applicants were disposed of along with stay petitions of the main appellant M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., who were directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 1.15 crores. Subject to deposit made by M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., pre-deposit of penalties imposed upon the present appellants was wai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hri M S Negi, learned DR appearing for the Revenue. The prayer in the application is to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of ₹ 10 lakh each imposed on M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies, Shri Roshan Lal Kwatra, Director of M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and partner of M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies, Shri Kashmir Chand. Further, penalty of ₹ 25 lakh was imposed on Shri Ashok Kumar Kwatra, Managing Director of M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 3. It is seen that fi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed on a firm i.e. M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies inasmuch as the same can only be imposed on a natural person as held by the Tribunal in the case of Woodmen Industries v. CCE, Patna [2004 (164) E.L.T. 339 (Tri-Kolkata)]. Said decision of the Tribunal stand upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court when the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected as reported in 2004 (170) E.L.T. A307. He also draws our attention to another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aditya .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e same relate to penalty imposed upon under Rule 26. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the Tribunal s decision in the case of Woodmen Industries stand confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. As such, in terms of the same, no penalty can be imposed on the firm M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies. 6. As regards the penalty on the individual, without going into the prima facie merits of the case, we take note of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court decision in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n any other manner dealing with any excisable goods that are liable to confiscation, is prima facie ultra vires of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is well settled that no penalty can be levied save by authority of law. Rule 26 is prima facie in excess of the Rule making power conferred under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. There will be an interim order restraining the respondents from giving further effect to the impugned letter dated 13th December, 2011 being part of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Rule 26, by respectfully following the same, we grant the interim relief to the petitioner upon whom penalties stand imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. 8. All the stay petitions are disposed of in the above manner. (Pronounced in the open Court on ) Sd/- (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) 9. [Order per : Manmohan Singh, Member (T)]. - I have gone through the stay order recorded by learned Member (Judicial) in respect of M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies, Sh. Roshan Lal Kawat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

penalties on them under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were imposable. Learned Member (Judicial) ordered for stay of proceeding against the M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies and others under Rule 26 of the Rules ibid on the grounds that companies cannot be penalized under the rule as they are not natural persons and are juristic persons only whereas as per the language of the Rule 26 ibid only natural persons can be penalized under the rule. Judgments in the case Woodmen Industries v. CCE, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Central Excise Act, 1944. 13. Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Prompt Casting Pvt. Ltd. is only an interim stay order and does not lay any ratio. Stay was operative only up to 17-12-2012 in terms of para 6 of the High Court order which reads as follows :- 6. The interim order shall remain in force till 17th December, 2012 or until further orders whichever is earlier. I find that the Hon ble Calcutta High Court decision cannot be relied upon. Accordingly I differ with th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Court judgment in V.K. Enterprises v. CCE - 2011 (266) E.L.T. 436 (P&H), it has also been held that penalty under Rule 26 is imposable. Reference was also made to Supreme Court judgment in Standard Chartered Bank & Others v. Directorate of Enforcement & Others - (2005) 275 ITR 81 = 2006 (197) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.) in the above judgment where it is held that legislative never intended to give immunity from prosecution or penalty for grave economic crimes. It was held that company is corpo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mp; Conductors Pvt. Ltd. are limited companies incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and, therefore, no penalty can be imposed on them under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It is submitted that the said companies cannot be attributed with requisite mens rea and the requirement of the Rule is that the person should have knowledge or attributed with reason to believe, that the goods are liable for confiscation under the Act or these Rules. We do not find any merit in the said contentio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on in Section 2(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, or Section 2(3) of the Act of 1868 would be applicable to the said Acts in both of which person has been defined as including any company or association or body of individual, whether incorporated or not. It is of course contended that this definition does not apply to a firm which is not a natural person and has no legal existence, as such Clauses (3), (8) and (37) of Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act are inapplicable to the appellant firm. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tners of it who are in-charge of its business or are responsible for the conduct of the same, cannot escape liability, unless it is proved by them that the contravention took place without their knowledge or he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention. 10. We may also note that a similar contention was raised before Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank and Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors., (2005) 275 I.T.R. 81. The majority view elucidated that a company can .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cases it is not possible to impose penalty of imprisonment because the company is a corporate body and not a natural person but fine or cash penalty can be imposed. 17. Hon ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana too in the case of M/s. Vee Kay Enterprises v. C.C.E. reported in 2011 (266) E.L.T. 436 (P & H) had observed that penalty under Rule 26 ibid is imposable on Dealers of Cenvatable goods when only invoices are raised to pass on illegal Cenvat credit while no raw materials are sup .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ling of goods and merely issued invoice or that he did not contravene a provision relating to evasion of duty. The appellant issued invoices without delivery of goods with intent to enable evasion of duty to which effect a finding has been recorded and which finding has not been challenged. We are, thus, unable to hold that appellant was not liable to pay any penalty. 18. I also note that other decision cited by the learned counsel and agreed upon by the Member Judicial as referred above ar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1984 (16) E.L.T. 243 (Ker.) has held that penalty under Sections 111 and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is imposable both on partner and the firm. 19. In light of the above, I hold that issue regarding imposition of penalty is no longer res integra and cases relied upon in the draft order of Member (Judicial) are no more good law. It is also noted that Hon ble Delhi High Court judgment in Sunil Mittal case was not cited before the Tribunal. It is further held that penalty is imposable upo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tar Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd. There are serious allegations against him for clandestinely manufacturing and clearing medicaments - the main drug being G-Norphine. The modus operandi was to manufacture the drugs with repeat batch numbers. The excess production was further cleared clandestinely mainly through M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies. Stay matter against M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. was earlier decided by this Bench and pre-deposit of ₹ 1.15 crores ordered vide Final Order Nos. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. is the main accused concerned with production and clearance of the drugs without payment of duty M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies was the main conduit for the clearance of the illegally manufactured drugs in the market. Both these concerns belong to the same family. Sh. Ashok Kumar is the Managing Director and Roshan Lal Kwatra, Director of M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Sh. Kashmir Chand is the father of Sh. Roshan Lal Kawtra. Sh. Roshan Lal Kwatra is also p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nnexures C, D and E to the SCN give details of such excess clearances as G-Norphine injections numbering 10302215 assessable value ₹ 67691782/-; Diazepam numbering 226929 assessable value ₹ 1013988/- and Pentazocine numbering 396239 assessable value ₹ 1188717/-. Statements of the chemists concerned with the production of the medicines in M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. were recorded which are incriminating and clearly point out that excess production of medicines were .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stated that the manufacturing was being supervised by all the three applicants Sh. Roshan Lal Kawatra, Sh. Kashmir Chand and Sh. Ashok Kumar. Testimony of Sh. Narinder Kumar, clerk with M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. has also been relied upon where he states that medicines were being cleared from the factory illegally on the basis of rough bills at the instance of Sh. Roshan Lal Kawatra, Sh. Kashmir Chand and Sh. Ashok Kumar. Similarly the statement of Sh. Swaran Singh the salesman of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

put in the bank accounts of the abovenoted three persons Sh. Roshan Lal Kawatra, Sh. Kashmir Chand and Sh. Ashok Kumar and also in the account of Mrs. Richa Kwatra, wife of Sh. Roshan Lal Kwatra. 22. Therefore without going into further details of the case, it is very clear that all the four noticees are directly involved in the illegal manufacturing and clearance of the medicines. In the interest of the Revenue, some terms need to be imposed upon them especially when the main accused M/s. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s under Rule 26 have been rightly imposed upon the appellants M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies, Sh. Roshan Lal Kawatra, Sh. Kashmir Chand and Sh. Ashok Kumar. Thus the balance of convenience is in the favour of the Revenue for imposition of penalty on these persons. Accordingly I differ with the findings recorded by learned Member (Judicial). 24. In the light of above discussions and findings, I am of the view that to avail the facility to hear the appeals, it is necessary that all these appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cts of active involvement of M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies, Sh. Roshan Lal Kawatra, Sh. Kashmir Chand and Sh. Ashok Kumar in the clandestine manufacture and clearance of medicaments by M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., pre-deposit of penalty imposed upon them under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is demandable as recorded by the Member (Technical)? OR Whether considering the case laws cited by the ld. Advocate Stay is to be granted to M/s Suraj Medical Agencies, Sh. Roshan Lal Ka .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nterest thereon under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 and had also imposed penalty of same amount on them under Section 11AC. Shri Ashok Kumar Kawatra is the Managing Director of M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and on him penalty of ₹ 25,00,000/- was imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Another Director of M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals is Shri Roshan Lal Kawatra on whom penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- was imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rul .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty by resorting to undervaluation. Penalty imposed on M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is ₹ 10,00,000/-. Shri Kashmir Chand is an employee of M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Incharge of production and clearances of medicines and on him penalty of ₹ 10,00,000/- has been imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and other appellants namely M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies, Shri Ashok .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stipulated period subject to which the pre-deposit of balance amount of duty demand, interest and penalty by M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty by the other appellants would stand waived and its recovery stayed. However, M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. did not deposit the directed amount as a result of which the appeal filed by M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. was dismissed vide final order No. 57266/2013 dated 6-8-2013. Howev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n Industries v. CCE, Patna reported in 2004 (164) E.L.T. 339 (Tri.-Kol.) and also the Tribunal s judgment in the case of Aditya Steel Industries v. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 229, wherein it was held that penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (corresponding to Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944) can be imposed only on the natural persons and not on the companies or firms constituted under the law and also the interim order of Hon ble Calcutta High Cour .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ver from the requirement of pre-deposit and ordered pre-deposit of 50% of the penalty imposed by each appellant for compliance with the provisions of Section 35F. 25.2 In view of the difference between Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical), following point of difference has been referred to the undersigned for decision :- Whether in view of the facts of active involvement of M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies, Shri Roshan Lal Kawatra, Shri Kashmir Chand and Shri Ashok Kumar in the clandestine m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he point of difference. 27. Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that so far as M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies is concerned, it being a partnership firm is not a natural person, that Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 applies only to a natural person and no penalty can be imposed on a company or a firm under this Rule, that in this regard he relies upon the Tribunal s judgment in the case of Woodmen Industries v. CCE, Patna (supra), the Civil appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rving that Rule 26 is prima facie in excess of the rule making powers conferred on the Central Government under Central Excise Act, 1944 has stayed the recovery of the penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, that in view of this, there is no justification for ordering pre-deposit of penalty by M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies and other appellants and it is the order recorded by Member (Judicial) is the correct order. 28. Shri Yashpal Sharma, the learned DR, defended the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

elies upon the Apex Court s judgment in the case of Madhumilan Syntax Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2007 (210) E.L.T. 484 (S.C.) and also the Tribunal s judgment in the case of Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd. v. CCE & Cus., Goa reported in 2010 (250) E.L.T. 94 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein the Tribunal relying upon the Apex Court s judgment in the case of Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) has held that the word person in Rule 26 need not be a natural person and penalty under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ction and clearance of M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies are a trading firm who were receiving the medicament, from M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The allegation against M/s. Suraj Medical Agencies is that they were receiving non-duty paid goods or the goods on which duty had been short paid by undervaluation, cleared by M/s. Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and it is on this basis penalty is sought to be imposed on them under Rule 26. The Departme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n this case is as to whether under Rule 26 penalty can be imposed on a firm which is not a natural person in view of the Tribunal s judgment in the case of Woodmen Industries v. CCE, Patna (supra) Government s civil appeal against which has been dismissed by the Apex Court and also the interim order of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Prompt Castings Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon ble High Court after observing that Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, prima facie, in excess of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ral Excise Rules which provides for imposition of penalty on any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned with transporting, removing, depositing keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any excisable goods that are liable to confiscation, is prima facie ultra vires of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is well settled that no penalty can be levied save by authority of law. Rule 26 is prima facie in excess of the Rule maki .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of fact, etc. on his part. Penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is imposable on the persons other than the manufacturer, who are involved in acquiring possession of or are in any other manner involved in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with excisable goods which they knew or had reason to believe are liable for confiscation. This provision is meant for impositio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e provisions of Section 37(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), the Central Government may make rules to provide for imposition of penalty on any person who acquires possession of any way in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing or in any other manner dealing with excisable goods which he knew are liable for confiscation. In view of this, the interim order of Hon ble Calcutta High Co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er Rule 26 can be imposed even on companies and the word person in this Rule need not be a natural person and would include a juristic person also which can be a firm, a corporate body or even a company. The Apex Court in the case of Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) had in para 23 of the judgment held that while it is, no doubt, true that a company is not a natural person but is a legal or juristic person, the Corporate criminal liability is not unknown to law and that while a co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Latest Happenings     ↓  

Forum: GST on RCM on rent in a unregistered state

Forum: COMPOSITION SCHEME

Forum: Input Tax Credit - Reg

Forum: GST Invoice

Article: Websites of Government Departments need lot of improvement. We are noticing detoriations in them for example, case of website of ITAT.

Highlight: Levy of additions tax u/s 115O on distribution of dividend - shares of its profits declared as distributable among the shareholders is not impressed with the character of the profit from which it reaches the hands of the shareholder - not to be bifurcated as agriculture and non-agriculture dividend - SC

Highlight: Rate of GST on old and scrap buses - 28% or 18% - at such initial tender process initiated by the Respondents-KSRTC, the present petitions filed by the petitioners are premature and misconceived and do not require any interference by this Court at this stage. - HC

Forum: Rent a cab operator

Highlight: In view of amendment made u/s 132A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act of 2017, the 'reason to believe' or 'reason to suspect', as the case may be, shall not be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal, SC dismissed the appeal of the assessee

Highlight: Validity of Assessment Order - period of limitation u/s 153 (2A) is applicable even if the entire order was not set aside but matter was remanded back for for limited aspects with directions - HC

News: Note ban was a shake-up, achieved its main objectives

Notification: Amendments in the notification No.5/2017- Integrated Tax (Rate) dated the 28th June, 2017.

Highlight: Levying interest u/s 234C - interest is to be charged on the returned income and not on assessed income.

Highlight: Accrual of income - sale of right to develop and sell incentive FSI under LOI - till the conditions of LOI are fulfilled transfer is not complete and income does not accrue to the assessee

Highlight: TPA - determination of ALP - TP adjustment by applying Bright Line Test (BLT) is not sustainable on protective basis having no statutory mandate.

Highlight: Safeguard Duty - Advance License Scheme - as there is no exemption from safeguard duty leviable under Section 8C, which is imposed on the goods imported from China, the importer has to pay safeguard duty

Highlight: Manufacture - process of cutting of waste plastic container - Such plastic containers before and after cutting are nothing but waste / scrap - Not a manufacturing activity as no new product emerges.

News: NITI Aayog and Govt. of Assam organizes workshop on health sector reforms in Guwahati; launches SATH- Sustainable Action for Transforming Human Capital

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 5/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding restriction of refund on corduroy fabrics

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst exemptions

Forum: GSTR 3B Rectification

Notification: seeks to exempt Skimmed milk powder, or concentrated milk

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 2/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to GST council decisions regarding GST exemptions.

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- central tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates

Notification: Seeks to amend notification no. 1/2017- integrated tax(rate) dated 28.06.2017 to give effect to gst council decisions regarding gst rates.

News: Notification Issued For GST Actionable Claim On Branded Food Products

Highlight: Classification printed computer stationary/manifold Business Forms - to be classified under Chapter Heading 4820.00 or under Chapter Heading 4901.90 - items like A4 sheets, advertisement and job card to be classified under Chapter 49

Article: RCM Applicability to persons not liable to get registered us 23(1)

Article: Credit of unsold stock [Section 140(3)] - Actual Credit as well as Notional Credit - Part-I - GST Transitional provisions

News: GST Refund - Blockage of Working Capital of Exporters - earlier also there was a normal blockage of funds for a period of 5-6 months at least

News: Clarification about Transition Credit - ₹ 1.27 lakh crore of credit of Central Excise and Service Tax was lying as closing balance as on 30th June, 2017 - claim of credit of ₹ 65,000 crore is not unexpected

Article: 20 Things You must know about E Way Bills in GST Law

Article: MISTAKES IN DRAFTING

Highlight: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg. - Circular

Highlight: The definition of "subsidiary company" or "subsidiary" u/s 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 shall come into force w.e.f. 20-9-2017

Highlight: Central Government notified the All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017 - Notification

Notification: All Industry Rates of Duty Drawback Schedule w.e.f. 1.10.2017

Circular: Investment by Foreign Portfolio Investors in Corporate Debt Securities Review

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under UTGST Act

Notification: Exemptions on supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under IGST Act

Notification: List of Exempted supply of services under the CGST Act

Notification: Rates for supply of services under CGST Act

Highlight: Acceptance of deposits by companies from its members - conditions relaxed in case of Specified IFSC Public company and a private company - Rule 3 amended

Notification: Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 8th September, 2017

News: Tax Payers Advised To Confirm Identities Of Income Tax Search Authorities

Notification: Amendment in Appendix 3 (SCOMET items) to Schedule- 2 of ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items 2012

Notification: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017

Circular: The Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 2017 and All Industry Rates (AIRs) of Drawback related changes -reg.



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version