TIOL turns 8 today, and thanks all Netizens for continued support and valuable feedback;

PM releases coins in denominations of Rs 100 & Rs 5 to commemorate '150 yrs of the First War of Independence' but Rs 100 coin is not for circulation;

NDA disrupts House on price rise issue;

Delhi Service Tax issues SCN for Rs 24 Cr to four major tour operators for evading tax on 'outbound tours';

Curbing steel prices : Govt prepares 'steely' action plan; CCEA to decide today;

Excise duty reduction : Pharma Advisory Forum recommends 4.58% price reduction by all companies + bring Cetrizine, Omeperazole + Nimuslide under price control with 50% trade margins;

Chennai DRI seizes Red Sanders logs worth Rs 50 lakhs at Tuticorin & Madurai

Lucknow DRI seizes 2.5 kg heroin + arrests female carrier of Thai origin;

Meher Singh, IRS of 1984 batch, is new Member (Accountant) of ITAT;

2008-TIOL-237-HC-DEL-IT.pdf + clinic story.pdf

CIT, Delhi Vs Dr Yogender Sharma (Dated : April 11, 2008)

Income Tax - Sec 32A - Investment Allowance - Assessee owns a disgnostic centre - installs X-ray machine - claims deduction u/s 32A - AO disallows and CIT(A) agrees - Tribunal allows the benefits based on decision of a co-ordinate bench - Explanation (2) to Section 32A(2) is a deeming provision and an industrial undertaking shall be deemed to be a small scale industrial undertaking, if it satisfies certain conditions but, first of all, it must be an industrial undertaking before the deeming provision with regard to the financial limits can be invoked. If a unit is not an industrial undertaking then, even if it fulfills the financial requirements, it cannot be deemed to be a small scale industrial undertaking. And by no stretch of imagination, a Hospital or a Diagostic Centre can be treated as an industrial undertaking - Appeal decided in favour of Revenue :DELHI HIGH COURT ;

2008-TIOL-236-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

CIT Vs Real Time Marketing Pvt Ltd (Dated : April 7, 2008)

Income Tax - AO makes additions u/s 68 for unsecured loans as it finds that cash deposits were made in a particular account and the same sum ran through various bank accounts to land at the assessee's account - CIT & Tribunal differ with the AO - In absence of tangible materials to link the assessee to the cash deposits made in a particular account and the same being transferred to the assessee's account, additions are not sustainable - Revenue's appeal dismissed :DELHI HIGH COURT ;

2008-TIOL-235-HC-RAJ-IT.pdf

CIT, Udaipur Vs M/s Hotel Hilltop (Dated : March 17, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee, a firm, is into running a hotel - accepts a sum as advance from a company to hand over the management of the firm - AO treats the same as dividend u/s 2(22)(e) - CIT(A) finds that since the firm is not a shareholder of the company, the amount cannot be assessed to tax under Section 2(22)(e) - Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeal as the ingredients of the deeming clause are not satisfied - The liability of tax, as deemed dividend, could be attracted in the hands of the individuals, being the shareholders, and not in the hands of the firm - Revenue Appeal dismissed. : RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ;

2008-TIOL-234-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

Sunil Dua Vs CIT (Dated : January 30, 2008)

Income Tax - Block Assessment - Assessee challenges validity of warrant of authorisation drawn in favour of Addl Director - As per CBDT Notification the expression 'Deputy Director' who is competent to issue a warrant also includes Addl Director, and since there is no challenge to the Notification, the first ground of the assessee does not merit consideration

AO makes additions for jewellery - Assessee argues that out of the jewellery seized, 500 gm was redeived by the wife of the assessee from her grandmother as per the will - Since the genuineness of the will has not been accepted by the lower authorities and it is not clear from the Will that the 95-yr-old lady was in a sound physical and mental condition to understand the content of the document and then it was signed in Gurmukhi while the Will is in Hindi, the additions sustained - Assessee's appeal rejected :DELHI HIGH COURT ;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-618-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CCE, Vizag Vs M/s Balaji Iron & Steel Traders (Dated : January 30, 2008)

Central Excise – first stage dealer – invoice shows customer's name as buyer and dealer's name as consignee – consignee is first stage dealer – credit admissible: the appellants are registered dealers under the Central Excise law and they are receiving duty paid goods from M/s RashtriyaIspat Nigam Ltd. (RINL) under the cover of an invoice issued under Rule 52A/Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 1944/2002. M/s RINL issued the invoice wherein there is a mention of their Long Term Contractor ( LTC ) as a “customer” and that of the appellant as a “consignee”. The goods physically moved from the manufacturer's premises (i.e., M/s RINL) to the premises of the appellant, being the consignee. The department contended that if the customer ( LTC ) of M/s RINL is a registered dealer, then he would be the “First Stage Dealer” and the appellant (consignee) is the “second stage dealer” and therefore passing on further Cenvat Credit to another registered dealer is in violation of Rule 7/9 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002/2004. In case the LTC (Customer) is an unregistered dealer then the credit passed by the appellant (consignee) is in violation of Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2001 and Rule 11 of Central Excise (No. 2) Rules, 2001, since he is neither a First stage of dealer nor a Second stage dealer : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-617-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CE – Transfer of capital goods to another unit of the same assessee by debiting in the Cenvat account – other unit eligible for credit – 2007-TIOL-250-CESTAT-BANG – followed : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-616-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Angadpal Industries Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Thane II (Dated : March 19, 2008)

Notification 6/2002-CE(N.T) - Deemed credit on fabrics - Prima facie provisions of para 6 is not attracted in the case of over valuation but applies only in case of non-levy, non-payment, short levy or short payment of duty – Stay granted : MUMBAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-620-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Jaipur Vs M/s B L Maratha (Dated : February 26, 2008)

ST - Rent-a-cab Service - Assessee provides cab service to BSNL - Revenue demands tax and imposes penalties - Commissioner(A) sets aside penalty as assessee deposited tax with interest - Since assessee is a sort of illiterate and is not aware of much of service tax laws, and the law is not only an exercise of intellect but also comes from heart with reasons - Powers u/s 80 rightly invoked - Revenue's appeal rejected : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-619-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CST, New Delhi Vs M/s Cani Merchandising Pvt Ltd (Dated : March 24, 2008)

ST - Business Auxiliary Service - Assessee books orders on behalf of foreign supplier - claims rebate under Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 - Revenue denies it on the ground that the service was provided within India - Matter remanded : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

ctariff08_052.pdf

CBEC grants 100% exemption to 212 more items under Indo-Lank FTA;

corrigendum.pdf

Amends 4/2008 related to skimmed milk exports and DEPB rates;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-622-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + depb story.pdf

M/s Asha Enterprises Vs CC (Seaport), Chennai (Dated : February 22, 2008)

Customs – export over-invoicing and claim of excess DEPB credit – the appellant was not provided with the samples of the consignment nor the samples were drawn in his presence - Commissioner could not legally use the results of a test conducted at the back of the exporter.

Restriction of DEPB – jurisdiction- the order restricting the DEPB credit made by the Commissioner is without jurisdiction. DGFT is the authority competent to determine the admissible DEPB credit based on the details of relevant exports with reference to the concerned shipping bills. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-621-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + error story.pdf

Indian Farmers Fertilisers Coop Ltd Vs CC, Import, Mumbai (Dated : March 7, 2008)

Error in calculating duty – Refund admissible – Section 154 is independent of Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962, but doctrine of unjust enrichment applies – Matter remanded by Tribunal. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

ddt 24 apr.pdf

Procedure for import of Vegetable Fats (Vanaspati) under Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement.

cobweb.pdf

Civil Service Day, PM's Speech & 'uncivil' elements of Pay Commission Report!

mbuzz550.pdf

OECD launches safety testing of nano-materials;

mbuzz549.pdf

Silk import: Demand and supply gap is more than 700MT, says Minister;