The enormity of money laundering was revealed in a data compiled by the IT department in 2005-06. ... The CD contained particulars of 20.000 bank accounts and details of transactions between hawala dealers and beneficiaries. Simultaneously, the department, in a crackdown on hawala dealers, had unearthed transactions worth over Rs.3,000 crores in Delhi alone. The entry operators had issued cheques against cash deposits in their accounts and raised bogus bills for a commission of 1% of the total ltransaction.

In one such case, I.T. sleuths had unearthed transactions of Rs.1,540 crore at the Fatehpuri branch of Federal Bank in the capital in 2005. During investigations, it was found that only three individuals had transacted the entire amount of Rs.1540 crore.
{Courtesy: Taxtation News, Exim India Times, Vol.II Issue 28 Chennai April 16-30, 2010

Supreme Court of India CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITIONCIVIL APPEAL NOS.960-966 OF 2003Commissioner of Central Excise,Ahmedabad ...Appellant VersusSolid & Correct Engineering Works & Ors. ...Respondents (With C.A. Nos. 5461-5462 of 2003)

In the instant case all that has been said by the assessee is that the machine is fixed by nuts and bolts to a foundation not because the intention was to permanently attach it to the earth but because a foundation was necessary to provide a wobble free operation to the machine. An attachment of this kind without the necessary intent of making the same permanent cannot, in our opinion, constitute permanent fixing, embedding or attachment in the sense that would make the machine a part and parcel of the earth permanently. In that view of the matter we see no difficulty in holding that the plants in question were not immovable property so as to be immune from the levy of excise duty.

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1068978/

Grievance sent to the Department of Consumer Affairs.

https://sites.google.com/site/rightinformer/regarding-pasting-of-mrp-slip-on-imported-packaged-goods

Samsung chief returns after tax-evasion pardon

The former boss of Samsung Electronics, who was convicted of tax evasion and later given a presidential pardon, has returned to head the company.

Lee Kun-hee headed Samsung for two decades before stepping down in April 2008, three months before being handed a three-year suspended sentence.

Analysts said Mr Lee's return was good news for the electronics giant. Mr Lee, 68, whose father founded Samsung, is seen as one of the South Korea's most prominent businessman. He is also one of the country's richest men.

Mr Lee received a special presidential pardon in December last year, so that he could return to the International Olympics Committee and help South Korea's bid to host the 2018 Winter Olympics. ***

However, questions were raised about re-appointing a convicted tax evader, albeit one who had been pardoned, to run the company. "This sort of decision shows that Samsung is very closed off to outside opinion on how the company should be run," said Kim Sang-jo, associate professor of economics at Hamsung University.

"Its decisions are being made by a very small group of people encased in its thick walls."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8584397.stm

"I want to inform you about various wrongdoings done by the department. Unfortunately as an Advocate I cannot name the client without his expressed instruction and do not want to name officer in the wrongdoing as I do not wish to harm any officer. I don’t really know what to do. Can a wrongdoing be exposed/corrected without assessee/officers name?" Thanks, The Facebook Team

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/582291/

CEA No.106 of 2007 -1-   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH   CEA No.106 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: February 3, 2010. M/S GMP FINISHING MILLS, AMRITSAR ...APPELLANT  VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ...RESPONDENT JALANDHAR

"Whether it is just and fair to reject the refund claim when excise duty was paid under protest and against provisional assessment order?" 

Counsel for the appellant has argued that duty was liable to be paid in respect of galleries. It is contended that once it has been held in M/s Sangam Processors’ case (supra) that size of galleries was not to be included in the chambers for the purpose of capacity determination and no duty was liable to be paid by the manufacturer, therefore, the Revenue was liable to refund the duty paid on the galleries. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellant has not relied on any material to show that it has not collected the duty paid by it from the buyers of the goods. It is contended that refund of duty would tantamount to unjust enrichment of the appellant, as it has already recovered the duty from the buyers and would be getting the refund also, if the appeal is allowed, which is impermissible. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length. The main issue involved in the present appeal is that doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable to the facts of the present case or not? As far as the payment of duty on the galleries is concerned, it is not in dispute CEA No.106 of 2007 that the appellant was not liable to pay duty on the same and was entitled to refund. However, before getting the refund, the appellant had to place on record sufficient material to show that it had paid the duty itself and had not passed on the burden on to his buyers. In the present case, no material has been placed on record by the appellant to show that it has not recovered the duty paid by him from his buyers and hence the appellant cannot be allowed to receive the refund as that would tantamount to unjust enrichment. Apart from the above, Section 11(B)(1) specifically provides that application for refund shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence, as the applicant may furnish, in order to establish that amount on duty of excise in relation to which the refund is being claimed was paid by him and the incidence of said duty has not been passed on by him to any other person. In the absence of any material to show that incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other

buyer, it would have to be presumed that the appellant has collected the duty from his customers. The appellant has failed to discharge the legal obligation as no documentary or any other proof in this regard has been adduced by it. The departmental authorities have righty relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CEA Mumbai−II vs. Allied Phogographics India Ltd., reported as 2004(166) ELT 3 (SC), wherein it has been held that doctrine of unjust enrichment could be validly invoked.

In view of the above, as the appellant has failed to prove that it has not recovered the duty paid by him from any of his customers and has thus, failed to discharge the onus, hence the appellant is debarred from taking the amount of refund as that would amount to unjust enrichment. The orders of the Tribunal as well as authorities below in directing the CEA No.106 of 2007 refund amount to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund is upheld.

US: Due to the removal of the word "lawful" from the 16th Amendment in 1916, even income earned via illegal activities is subject to tax. This put criminals like *** in a bind because they could either admit breaking the law and file proper taxes (essentially confessing), or cheat on taxes and risk getting jailed for evasion. In addition to paying fines and the outstanding tax bill, *** was sentenced to 11 years in prison. ...As we can see from the troubles of these five people, what you may save now will not be worth what you have to pay later. http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=11932331

Broadly, the CBEC report has sought the removal of numerous exemptions, drawbacks and concessions that have turned SEZs into tax-avoidance conduits for importers and exporters without any genuine business to back them.

The CBEC’s revenue loss estimate Rs 1,75,000 crore has been derived from concessions extended for capital goods and raw material procured by functioning SEZs developers  ... The CBEC had estimated an overall revenue loss of Rs 3,50,000 crore involved in the creation of all SEZs since 2006, when the Act was passed.

The report has also suggested redefining the term "exports" by deleting the provision that allows exports to include supplying goods from one unit to another in the same or different SEZ. Investigations have found that the provision enables exporters to claim concession by transferring goods to another SEZ without physically exporting anything.

... Further, provisions of the Customs Act and Central Excise Act should be made applicable to SEZs for recovery of interest, fines or penalties if a unit fails to utilise exempted goods for authorised operations or is unable to account for the goods it imports. Currently, these provisions are exempt under SEZ Act.

Among the other key recommendations are provisions for the valuation of goods under the Custom Valuation Rules 1988, surprise checks by custom officials to examine goods and the introduction of documents for SEZs that procure goods domestically (many tend to show these purchases as imports to benefit from duty concessions).

The report has also said, the direct delivery facility without custom assessment at present prevalent only for movement of all goods within SEZs, should be restricted to emergency cargo and units with impeccable track records.

From the security perspective, CBEC has suggested that cargo, vehicles, documents and people passing in and out of SEZs should be made open to custom surveillance, both physically and through close circuit television as an anti-smuggling measure.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/sez-act-needs-overhaul-cbec/383867/

SC: CIVIL APPEAL NO.225 OF 2010 Commissioner Of Central Ex. vs M/S. International Auto Limited on 8 January, 2010 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/894861/