News
GST – Penalty under Section 122(1A) can only be imposed on a ‘taxable person’
03 五月 2024
The Bombay High Court has set aside the show cause notice invoking the provisions of Section 122(1A) and Section 137 of the CGST Act, 2017 to impose huge penalty and to initiate prosecution against the petitioner, who was an individual and employee (Senior Tax Operations Manager cum Authorised Person) of the company against whom demand was raised.
Access to a bowling alley – Service other than fun/recreation in any part of such facility is not material for coverage under Negative list
01 五月 2024
The CESTAT New Delhi has set aside the order which had disallowed the assessee from being covered under the scope of Section 66D(j) of the Finance Act, 1994 (Negative List – Admission to entertainment events or access to amusement facilities), as the assessee provided services other than bowling alley activity also at the centre.
Trademark Registrar has no authority to restrict choice of colours – Applicant has right to choose colours
10 四月 2024
The Madras High Court has held that the Registrar of the Trademarks does not have the authority to impose restriction on the choice of the colours.
Strapping together of tyres, tubes and flaps for replacement market, is not ‘deemed manufacture’
22 三月 2024
The CESTAT Mumbai has held that strapping together of tyres, tubes and flaps, referred as ‘TTF’, at the premises of logistics service provider, for dispatch to dealers for catering to replacement market for bus/lorry operators, is not ‘manufacture’ under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Valuation – Notional cost of specification drawings received free of cost by manufacturer from buyer, before letter of intent identifying former as supplier, is not includible
15 三月 2024
The CESTAT New Delhi has on 12 March 2024 held that the notional cost of specifications in the form of drawings and designs supplied free of cost by a company to its vendors (component manufacturers) is not includible in the assessable value of parts or components manufactured by such vendors and cleared to the company.
RoDTEP benefit extended to exports by Advance Authorisation holders and by EOU and SEZ units
13 三月 2024
The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has extended the benefit of Scheme for Remission of Duties and Taxes on Exported Products (‘RoDTEP’) on exports by Advance Authorisation holders, and by Export Oriented Units and units in Special Economic Zones.
Imports under Advance Authorisations, and by EOUs and SEZ units – Compliance with certain QCOs relaxed
12 三月 2024
The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has relaxed the compliance requirements under Quality Control Orders (‘QCOs’) issued by Ministry of Steel, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) and Ministry of Textiles in case of imports by holders of Advance Authorisations (‘AA’), Export Oriented Units (‘EOUs’) and units in Special Economic Zones (‘SEZs’) for utilization/consumption in manufacture of export products.
Copyrights – Suit against groundless threat of legal proceedings becomes infructuous once ‘action’ for copyright infringement is initiated
07 三月 2024
The Bombay High Court has held that once an action is initiated for the alleged infringement of copyright by the person who claims to be the owner thereof, albeit bona fide and with due diligence, the remedy for the alleged groundless threat of legal proceeding (under Section 60 of the Copyright Act), with the opponent, ceases to operate.
13th Ministerial Conference at Abu Dhabi – Key highlights
05 三月 2024
The WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) was recently held from 26th February to 1st March. The key takeaways from the Abu Dhabi Ministerial Declaration and other Ministerial Decisions are as follows.
No confiscation even if classification or exemption is not in conformity with the Department’s view or held not correct in appellate proceedings
28 二月 2024
The CESTAT New Delhi has held that classification of goods by the importer, even if the same is not in conformity with re-assessment by the proper officer or even if it is held to be not correct in any appellate proceedings, does not render goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.