GOES - Pay 100 Dollars to pass through Customs quickly! (See 'DDT')

Cell sites/RF Antennas atop building terraces – Not excise but Service Tax! (See 'DDT')

Withdrawal of export duty on steel: Steel Secretary hopeful of quick withdrawal of duty;

CBEC recovers Rs 5000 Crore tax arrears last fiscal;

CBDT + CBEC to speed up AGT exercise; directed to wrap up by May 31;

Govt says hawk aircraft supply not stopped; India receives two aircraft with spares today & two more to land in June;

Over 10000 feared dead in major earthquake in China;

cbdtorder068_2008.pdf

CBDT Member S S Khan gets addl charge of Member (IT); Chairman retains zonal charge of Mumbai & N B Singh gets North Zone;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-268-HC-MUM-IT.pdf + diamond story.pdf

Diamond Services International (P) Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: December 12, 2007)

Income Tax - Assessee is a tax resident of Singapore - collects diamonds and gems and sends the same to Gemological Institute of America for grading - collects payments for the same and remits it to GIA - applies for no TDS certificate u/s 197 - Revenue denies it on the ground that the grading of diamonds is a technical skills and it involves transfer of commercial knowledge and technical knowhow which is royalty under Article 12 of DTAA with Singapore and Sec 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act - The grading certificate which is issued to Indian clients does not involve any transfer of commercial interest or getting the right to use the experience of G.I.A. There is also no transfer of any skill or knowledge of GIA to the customers in the issuance of grading reports. The payments received is not the one for the use or the right to use experience, but is instead one for the application of experience to a certain factual situation, and therefore, payments made for mere certification of grades does not qualify for royalty consideration - Revenue directed to issue certificate u/s 197: BOMBAY HIGH COURT ;

2008-TIOL-267-HC-AHM-IT.pdf

Sanjay Oilcake Industries Vs CIT (Dated : March 4, 2008)

Income Tax - AO makes additions by disallowing 25% of the payments made for purchases of raw materials on the ground that the prices were inflated and the suppliers were not traceable - CIT(A) and Tribunal confirm the same - Since there are concurrent findings by the lower authorities that the payment made for purchases were immediately withdrawn by bearer cheques and the suppliers are not traceable, there is nothing on record to rebut the presumption that the prices were not inflated - Assessee's appeal dismissed : AHMEDABAD HIGH COURT ;

2008-TIOL-183-ITAT-MUM.pdf

DCIT, Mumbai Vs ABG Heavy Industries Ltd (Dated: January 8, 2008)

Income Tax - Deduction u/s 80-IA - Assessee enters into contract with port authority for supply, installation, testing, commissioning and maintenance of the cranes on lease for a period of ten years at the container terminal - reduces book profits by profits derived from industrial undertaking as per provisions of Sec 115JA - AO disallows deduction on the ground that the cranes do not constitute port and the also the same were not operated by the assessee - CIT(A) allows the claims by holding that the assessee had an agreement with the port under the BOLT scheme and also relied on the Circulars No. 793 dated 3-6-2000, in which it was clarified that structures at ports for storage, loading and unloading to be included in the definition of Port for the purpose of section 10(23) and section 80-IA provided such structures have been built under BOT or BOLT scheme and at the expiry of the lease agreement such equipment are then transferred to the port authorities - Since the provisions of the Act do not talk of the extent of operation and control required., it was fair and reasonable to hold that the assessee was entitled to the relief in the light of the circular No. 793 which was binding on the departmental authorities and thus deduction under section 80-IA is be considered while calculating the book profits under section 115JA - Held - Since the assessee has been providing part of the infrastructural facility at the Port it is eligible for the deduction claimed under section 80-IA and the same is to be considered while calculating the book profits under section 115JA - Revenue Appeal dismissed. : MUMBAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-182-ITAT-MUM.pdf

Pelican Syntex Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: March 24, 2008)

Income Tax - AO adjusts dividend income while quantifying deemed speculation loss under Explanation to Sec 73 - CIT invokes revisonary powers u/s 263 - Merely because the CIT can hold a different view it cannot nullify the AO's view which is one of the possible views - Assessee's appeal allowed : MUMBAI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-99-SC-CX.pdf + sc cx story.pdf

CCE, Belgaum Vs Mysore Kirloskar Ltd (Dated: May 9, 2008)

Central Excise – valuation – value of drawings, patterns etc - before adding the value of the drawings etc, it has to be established that the consideration had a nexus with the negotiated price of the assessable goods under clearance, The order passed by the Commissioner does not indicate that no machines were subsequently manufactured by the respondent after using drawings, designs, jigs, fixtures, tooling etc. supplied by the ITC. Therefore, loading of the entire amount of Rs. 43 lakhs without such a finding and recovery of duty thereon was not permissible at all. The order of the Commissioner does not indicate adequate reasons to invoke proviso to Section 11A ( 1). : SUPREME COURT ;

2008-TIOL-737-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Pearl Polymers Ltd Vs CCE, Raigad (Dated : February 21, 2008)

Penalty - Case against the co-noticees comes to an end once the order of the settlement is passed in respect of the person entitled to file an application before the Settlement Commission – Larger Bench decision in Nippon Bearing Pvt Ltd., Vs. CC (Imports) Mumbai as reported at 2007-TIOL-1130-CESTAT-MUM followed.

Penalty imposed on the appellant in this case is for the availment of ineligible credit - It is on record that the appellants had availed Cenvat credit, basically on a document, which indicated the payment of duty by a 100% EOU. The appellant is not in a position, at that time to come to a conclusion, whether the said duty has been correctly paid by the supplier of inputs or not – having reversed the credit so incorrectly availed, the appellant cannot be saddled with any penalty. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-736-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Cipla Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-II (Dated : February 18, 2008)

Cenvat Credit – supplier sister concern paying duty in excess of that required to be paid – entire exercise is one of revenue neutrality – Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty & penalty : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-735-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Mutha Engineering Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-II (Dated : February 20, 2008)

Drawing and designing charges for motor vehicle parts and IC engines is to be included in the assessable value of the excisable goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants – Tribunal decisions in CCE, Hyderabad vs. BHEL 2005-TIOL-310-CESTAT-MAD relied upon. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-734-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Srutech Tubes (I) Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-II (Dated : February 26, 2008)

Appellants manufacture MS Tubes on job work basis for Tata Steel who supply C.R.Strips – duty being discharged at the price at which such goods were sold by Tata's in open market – In case of job worked goods, value to be arrived at on cost construction basis as laid down by SC in Pawan Biscuits 2002-TIOL-04-SC-CX – no prima facie case – Pre-deposit ordered. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

CIRCULAR

sercir101.pdf

Filing of claim for refund of service tax paid under notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6/10/2007 – reg

stgst.pdf

Is interest payable on reversal of wrong credit before utilisation?

2008-TIOL-732-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Blood Care Collection Centre Vs CCE, Raipur (Dated : March 31, 2008)

ST - Penalty - Commissioner enhances penalty decided by the adjudicating authority - Assessee pleads that since the Tribunal has held that their service was not covered under business auxiliary service and no tax to be paid, the Commissioner's invocation of powers under Sec 84 not proper - Commissioner's order set aside : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-731-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Viking Shipping (Chennai) (P) Ltd Vs CST, Chennai (Dated : February 27, 2008)

Service tax – stay / dispensation of pre-deposit – port services - most of the activities in question were performed within the port area - these include stevedoring activities ancillary thereto -these activities were expressly authorized by the Port as seen from the terms and conditions of the relevant licences. Prima facie, these activities would fit in the definition of ‘port services' given under Section 65(82) – pre-deposit ordered : CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-98-SC-CUS.pdf + sc cus story.pdf

M/s Deepak Agro Solutions Ltd Vs CC, Maharashtra (Dated: May 8, 2008)

Customs- Classification of Brimstone: An entry is to be given its ordinary meaning. If any goods fit in within one entry, the same for any purpose would not be held to be included in the other and in particular the residuary. It is well settled what is not excluded would be held to be included. Within the category of Sulphur , Sulphur recovered as by- product in the process of refinement of crude oil also finds place. "Salt and Sulphur " are dealt with in Chapter 25. Sulphur may be used for different purposes including agricultural purposes. Brimstone 90 is used for agricultural purposes as would appear from the descriptions. Sulphur does not find place in Chapter 38 which deals with agricultural operation. In all probabilities as Sulphur is dealt with in Chapter 25, it was not found necessary to be dealt therewith. The dictionary meaning of Brimstone is `crude sulfur '.

Larger Bench cannot decide anew issue : the question which, therefore, should have been posed by the Tribunal while differing with the correctness of its earlier decision was as to whether the product is such which can be said to be insecticides, fungicides and herbicides etc. It is also of some significance that the Revenue was of the opinion that the product would come within the Entry 3808 30 40 being plant-growth regulators. The reference was in regard to the applicability of Entry 2503 and/or 3808 30 40. The Tribunal, however, made a new case by opining that it would come within Entry No. 3808 90, which is impermissible in law. : SUPREME COURT;

2008-TIOL-733-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Mahendra Kumar Kapadia Vs CC, Chennai (Dated : Nov 22, 2007)

Customs – overinvoicing of polyester dyed fabric exported under DEPB – matter remanded as the appellants could not cross examine the departmental officers and the trader in connection with the enquiries about the present market value. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

ddt 13 may.pdf

Refund of service tax paid under notification No. 41/2007-Service Tax – where to file - Board clarifies;

vacancy.pdf

Competent Authority looking for JC for Kolkata;

mbuzz604.pdf

Govt removes freeze on general pool accommodation for Prasar Bharati;

mbuzz603.pdf

CBEC recovers Rs 5000 Crore tax arrears last fiscal;

mbuzz602.pdf

Indian power reforms manage to retain confidence of global agencies;

mbuzz601.pdf

India's key economic installations: Home Minister for integrated security system;