Union Cabinet expanded; M S Gill, J Scindia, Jitin Prasada, V Narayanasamy, R Oraon, Santosh Bagrodia & Raghunath Jha inducted; Six Ministers, including Suresh Pachouri resign;

Business chamber seeks Rs 5000 Cr fund for SEZs in J & K;

UK police seizes 350 kg heroin; Indian among three arrested;

Mangalore DRI seizes Red Sanders being exported to Dubai as exports consignment;

India, Turkmenistan ink MoU for cooperation in oil sector;

High inflation puts Govt on high alert; more steps are on the cards;

Govt sets up irrigation & water resources finance corporation;

CBI recovers Rs 1.2 Cr from ED of RINL in Vizag and Hyderabad;

2008-TIOL-143-ITAT-DEL.pdf

ITO, New Delhi Vs M/s Magnum Plasticizers & Allied Products Pvt Ltd (Dated: January 9, 2008)

Income Tax - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) cancel penalty as satisfaction not recorded by the AO - Revenue pleads that since the claim of commission made by the assessee was found to be bogus and set aside, and the same being discernible from the order, there is no need to separately record satisfaction for initiating penalty - Since this issue is pending with the full bench of jurisdictional HC, the matter remanded to the CIT(A): DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-142-ITAT-DEL.pdf

ACIT Vs M/s KRBL Ltd (Dated: February 8, 2008 )

Income Tax - Depreciation - Revenue contends the provisions of Explanation 5 of sec 32 are retrospective in nature and will apply to any assessment year and that for computing deduction under Chapter VI-A, depreciation has to be allowed whether claimed by assessee or not - Assessee relies on CIT(A) order directing the Assessing Officer not to allow depreciation for AY and observes that there being no necessary implication that the Explanation 5 of sec 32 was to be operative retrospectively - it is clear that for the purpose of deduction under Chapter VIA the profits and gains have to be computed as per the provisions of section 29 to 43D of the Act and since section 32 is included in section 29 to 43D, depreciation has to be allowed for the purpose of computation of gross profits out of which deduction under Chapter VIA are to be allowed - That amendment to section 32(1) by insertion of Explanation 5 will be operative prospectively - Revenue appeals allowed.: DELHI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-522-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + nikhil story.pdf

Nikhil Footwears Ltd Vs CCE, Rohtak (Dated: (Dated: November 14, 2007)

In the absence of intention to evade duty, no penalty in case of contravention of Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-521-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Transformers & Electricals Kerala Ltd Vs CCE, Cochin (Dated: December 5, 2007)

Central Excise – valuation – demand of interest on differential duty paid on supplementary invoices – The bench has been consistently taking the view that interest is not leviable when the differential duty is paid due to price variation - the impugned orders set aside and appeal allowed: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-525-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CCE, Hyderabad Vs M/s Sona Impex (Dated: January 1, 2008)

All Confiscated goods can be redeemed on fine: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-524-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s R M Polypack Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Allahabad (Dated: January 1, 2008)

Cenvatted inputs used by manufacturer for jobwork – credit not required to be reversed in view of LB decision in Sterlite Industries 2005-TIOL-305-CESTAT-Mum-LB – Appeal allowed with consequential relief.

Rule 57F & notification 214/86CE are procedural in nature & do not grant any exemption – Impugned job worked goods are neither exempted nor subject to nil rate of duty: DELHI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-523-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Raaj Khosla & Co Vs CCE, New Delhi (Dated: January 31, 2008)

ST - Cenvat Credit - Revenue denies credit on the ground that invoices were issued in a different name and also a different address than the one mentioned in the registration certificate - Since the registration certificate was later amended and other addresses of the assessee's premises were mentioned in the same, credit cannot be denied: DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

CIRCULARS

rbi07cir036.pdf

Liberalised Remittance Scheme for Resident Individuals;

rbi07cir035.pdf

Deferred Payment Protocols dated April 30, 1981 and December 23, 1985 between Government of India and erstwhile USSR;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-63-SC-PORT.pdf

Forbes Campblee & Co Ltd Vs Board of Trustees, Port of Bombay (Dated: February 14, 2008)

Demurrage charges - Are steamer agents liable to pay demurrage on goods not cleared by consignee? - Can they be treated as owners of goods as per the definition enshrined in Sec 2(o) of Major Ports Trust Act? - Bench doubts correctness of Supreme Court's Constitution Bench order where it had held that demurrage to be recovered only from consignee and not steamer agent - Matter goes to Larger Bench: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA;

2008-TIOL-520-CESTAT-KOL.pdf

Shri Amit Kumar Saha Vs CC ,West Bengal (Dated: (Dated: January 10, 2008)

Evidence - Applicant did not claim ownership of the seized currency explaining licit acquisition thereof and also did not identify its actual owner -  This leads to an inference regarding its illegal importation, considering its foreign origin , even in the absence of any specific and direct evidence about improper importation, particularly when no evidence is led to show that the said seized currency was legally acquired from any authorised dealer in foreign exchange: KOLKATA CESTAT;

sivakr microsoft.pdf

Microsoft case - Macro-hard implications!;

steel story.pdf

Steel price row should be resolved by independent regulator;

mbuzz495.pdf

CBN sleuths are on prowl; make a series of narco seizures in Rajasthan;