Govt likely to levy anti-dumping duty on import of Colour Picture Tubes;

PM's Advisory Panel for 10% MAT on SEZ units;

Govt advertises for hiring Competition Commission Chairman + Members;

Left veteran Surjeet slips into coma; PM visits hospital;

PM once again comes out in support of Federal Crime Bureau; urges all political parties ruling States to support it;

ILO Asia-Pacific meet on socially-inclusive strategies to begin in Delhi on Monday;

CBDT Member Ajai Singh to hold Addl charge of Member (Inv) upto May 30;

FM reiterates Govt reserves right to take administrative action against Cement & Steel companies;

CBDT says arrested ITAT Member is neither an officer nor an emplyee of Department;

2008-TIOL-111-SC-IT.pdf + sc story.pdf

Janatha Textiles & Others Vs Tax Recovery Officer (Dated: May 16, 2008)

Income Tax - attachment of property - auction for tax recovery - rights of third party purchaser of property cannot be disturbed even if decree is subsequently set aside

It is an established principle of law that in a third party auction purchaser's interest in the auctioned property continues to be protected notwithstanding that the underlying decree is subsequently set aside or otherwise.

Law makes a clear distinction between a stranger who is a bona fide purchaser of the property at an auction sale and a decree holder purchaser at a court auction. The strangers to the decree are afforded protection by the court because they are not connected with the decree. Unless the protection is extended to them the court sales would not fetch market value or fair price of the property. : SUPREME COURT ;

2008-TIOL-188-ITAT-MUM .pdf

South India Shipping Corpn Ltd Vs DCIT (Dated: February 28, 2008 )

Income Tax - Deduction u/s 43B - AO overlooks the evidence and levies additional tax – CIT(A) holds that the levy is not maintainable - In the light of subsequent circular of the Board which modified the earlier Circular which was the basis of the AO to levy additional tax, assessee's appeal allowed :MUMBAI ITAT ;

rlt086-Part1.pdf + rlt086-Part2.pdf

Headnotes of RLT latest case laws;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-110-SC-CX.pdf + sc cx story.pdf

Bhupendra Steel Pvt Ltd Vs CCE (Dated: May 16, 2008)

Central Excise – exemption – Notification No. 208/83: pieces of bars, rods, flat etc., which are cut off from the main item, cannot qualify as pieces which are roughly shaped by rolling or forging.

The Court also took note of the Revenue's allegation that the assessee had purchased the ends of flats from scrap dealers, which had not been denied. This also indicates that ends of flats do not fall under Item 25(8). Since the Notification does not cover either "waste and scrap" or "flats", the assessee would not be entitled to exemption under Notification No.208 /83. It was further held that it was for the assessee to show under what sub-item the inputs used by them fall. Since they did not fall under sub-item (8) of T.I. 25 and taking into consideration the fact that the ends of flats had been purchased from scrap dealers, the Court held that the inputs did not fall under sub-item (8).

The Revenue's case has been that the assessee had purchased trimmings and forgings, old dismantled machines, old broken engineering goods, punched steel metal containers and other broken articles. These certainly cannot be treated as "pieces roughly shaped". As far as the period after the introduction of present definition in Note 6 is concerned, the inputs are squarely covered by the definition of waste and scrap and waste and scrap does not find any mention in Notification No. 202/88 or 90/88. : SUPREME COURT ;

2008-TIOL-765-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Panyam Cement & Mineral Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Tirupathi (Dated: February 4, 2008)

Central Excise – CENVAT – Used Capital goods -   No duty is required to be paid on sale of used capital goods as they are not ‘goods removed as such'. Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-764-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Nizam Deccan Sugars Ltd Vs CCE, HYD-I (Dated: February 25, 2008)

Central Excise – CENVAT – Capital goods – Power Plant -   Power generated from power plant is partly used for manufacture of sugar and is partly sold. The capital goods will not fall within the ambit of Rule6 (i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules in as much as the capital goods are used for manufacture of excisable goods. Credit allowed.

Limitation – Extended period – Appellant has intimated the Department about installation of power plant. Extended period not invokable. : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-761-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Fatty acids & residues entitled to the benefit of Notification 115/75CE - Exemption notification cannot be interpreted by adding words to it.

Notification 115/75-CE - Notification refers to Oil mill and Solvent extraction industry which suggests that any goods manufactured in a factory which may qualify as 'Oil Mill Solvent Extraction Industry', is entitled to exemption  - fact that the appellant purchased crude oil and by subjecting the same to refining process manufactured oil is immaterial - Revenue's contention that appellant not being solvent extraction units, cannot claim the benefit of exemption under the said notification in respect of fatty acid or residues is not justified. 

Shortage of refined edible oil - Entire amount of duty having been paid by appellant, penalty cannot be imposed. : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-760-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Thane-II Vs Parkman Polymer Industries (Dated: February 14, 2008)

Clubbing of units – sufficient evidence adduced by respondents to submit that units are not dummies as both hold central Excise registrations various machines like hydraulic press, lathe machine, grinding machine etc. were installed in the alleged dummy unit; both had separate power connection, independent factory etc.; materials were procured independently and storage facility of both factories was separate – Commissioner(A) order extending SSI benefit upheld & Revenue appeal rejected. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-763-CESTAT-BANG..pdf

M/s Nityananda Electronics Vs CCE, Mangalore (Dated: February 26, 2008)

Service Tax paid before SCN – No penalty, but interest payable : BANGALORE CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-766-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Shri Ramu Gupta Vs CC, Lucknow (Dated: January 29, 2008)

COD for filing appeal after a period of 10 years – since adjudication order could not be served by registered post as appellant was not available, the same was affixed on the notice board of the Customs House, as per the provisions of Section 153 of Customs Act – Order can be said to be served - there is no merit in the contention of the applicant that they have shown sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation – COD & Stay application dismissed. : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-762-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Shree Gautam Ship Breaking Inds Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Jamnagar (Dated : March 20, 2008)

Bank Guarantee encashed after passing of Order in Original - Refund - whether amount encashed in nature of payment of duty or pre-deposit of confirmed dues – whether limitation/unjust enrichment would apply for refund – Issue goes to Third Member : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

sc cus story.pdf + 2008-TIOL-109-SC-SERVICE.pdf

Chennai Customs Appraising Officers Association Vs UoI (Dated: May 16, 2008)

Appraisers – Seniority lists- Stricture against government. It is a matter of grave concern that although the parties have filed a large number of original applications and writ applications and the matter had at least once been taken up upto this Court, the Union of India has singularly failed to lay down a proper legal framework for the purpose of determination of inter se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees. Correct facts and figures have also not been placed by the Union of India before the learned Tribunal. It furthermore appears that even they are not in possession of all the relevant documents. If anybody is to be blamed for the messy situation, the Union of India, must take upon it the major chunk of the blame.

NO SENIORITY FOR AD-HOC PROMOTIONS - Whereas all appointments in the direct recruitment quota being regular in nature, their seniority was to be counted from the date of their appointment, but so far as the promotees who had been promoted on ad hoc basis are concerned, they could not, in terms of the Rules, rank senior to the direct recruits. : SUPREME COURT;

article.pdf

Is section 5B of the CEA' 44 really required to confound problem of metallization?

mbuzz617.pdf

PM's Advisory Panel for 10% MAT on SEZ units;

mbuzz616.pdf

OECD to host 'Future of Internet Economy' meet in Korea in June;

mbuzz615.pdf

World Bank earmarks USD 1 mn for HIV and AIDS Innovations in South Asia;