Write off/abandonment of irrecoverable amount of arrears of revenue (See 'DDT')

Revenue Boards step up pace of AGT work (See "Common Basket")

West Bengal Panchayat Polls turn violent; 19 lives lost;

India signs Headquarters Agreement with Global Development Network;

Railways introduces e-ticket facility for even wait-listed tickets;

Study indicates Indian software sector lost about USD 2 bn due to piracy;

2008-TIOL-274-HC-DEL-IT.pdf + compounding story.pdf

M/s Snageet Exports Pvt Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: April 23, 2008)

Income Tax - Sec 279(2) - compounding of offence - Revenue initiates prosecution proceedings for falsifying particulars of income - Trial court levies penalty and orders six months sentence - Application for compounding - Courts raise no objections - Petitioner intimated about composition fee - Willingness to deposit the same communicated to the CCIT, the concerned authority - CBDT directs the CCIT to reject the application and the same was communicated to the petitioner - Authority of Board challenged to give such direction to the CCIT who has powers u/s 279(2) to decide the issue - Held - As per Sec 119(1) and the Board guidelines, the CCIT / DGIT can grant compounding only in consultantion with the Board which is an integral part of the decision-making, and also its orders are a binding on the field officials - Besides, if the chances of success in prosecution are bright, the compounding is not to be granted, and this appears to be the reason for rejcting the application as the prosecution's case has been upheld by the Trial Court, and it is clearly a well thought out strategy of tax evasion - Appellant's petition rejected : DELHI HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-273-HC-P&H-IT.pdf

CIT, Faridabad Vs Smt Prevwati (Dated: May 7, 2008)

Income Tax - AO gets to know about huge land compensation received by the assessee - Notice u/s 148 - Ex-parte assessment completed by making additions for various deposits made in the bank account - Tribunal sets aside additions but allows interest to be taxed on accrual basis - Since Revenue has produced no evidence related to a few deposits made by late husband of the assessee and the same money being withdrawn and deposited in the bank account under scrutiny, tribual order upheld - Revenue's appeal dismissed : P & H HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-190-ITAT-HYD.pdf

ACIT, Nellore Vs M/s Krishnaveni Real Estate & Property Developer Pvt Ltd (Dated: February 7, 2008)

It is not in dispute that the change made by the assessee is bona fide. Neither the Assessing Officer nor the DR have been able to attach any mala fides to the change effected by the assessee. Further, it is also not in dispute that after effecting the change in the current year, the assessee has consistently followed the same method of valuation. Under these circumstances, the test of prudence, which is one of the essential principles of financial accounting, followed by the assessee has to be upheld. : HYDERABAD I ITAT ;

2008-TIOL-189-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Saroj Sales Organisation Vs ITO, Mumbai (Dated: January 28, 2008)

Income Tax Act - Section 80IB(10) - Mumbai Municipal Corporation sanctioned a building plan to the Principal Developer for construction of one building consisting of 11 Wings, Principal Developer in pursuance of the sanctioned plan itself constructed only two Wings and granted sub-development rights for the remaining 9 Wings of the building to the assessee - AO disallowed deduction u/s 80IB(10) to the assessee alleging (i) that construction of separate wings of the same building cannot be treated as a separate independent housing project eligible for deduction (ii) that according to section 80-IB(10)(d) the permissible shopping area is only 5% of the built up area or 2000 sq.ft. whichever is less whereas the shopping area of 'Nisarg' is about 7.60% (iii) that the assessee has not received the completion certificate of the housing project from the Municipality as required u/s 80-IB(10)(a) of the Act.

Held, on facts and considering that the assessee having obtained different commencement certificates and different wings having started on different periods of time these were independent housing projects eligible for deduction – Held further, that the Housing Project were approved before 31.3.2005 and for such project there was no stipulation as to the shopping complex, amendments for same were made subsequently. Considering that assessee having filed completion certificate before ITAT, held assessee was eligible for deduction. :MUMBAI ITAT ;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

CIRCULAR

excircular870.pdf

Payment of amount under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004;

Instruction.pdf

Rebate on goods exported in N-E and exported under Rule 18: CBEC directs field formations to dispose off all pending cases;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-773-CESTAT-KOL.pdf + appeal story.pdf

M/s North Eastern Tubes Ltd Vs CCE & CC, Guwahati (Dated: March 10, 2008)

For the umpteenth time, the Tribunal tries to teach the Commissioner(Appeals) what his job is – Matter remanded for passing a reasoned & speaking order : KOLKATA CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-772-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Bellary Steels & Alloys Ltd Vs CCE, Belgaum (Dated: February 5, 2008)

Mere entries in the balance sheet cannot be the sole basis for confirmation of demands on the allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods, there should be corresponding evidence of purchase of raw materials, utilization of electricity, labour, finance and removal of goods : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-771-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Anmol Bakers (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Noida (Dated: March 10, 2008)

Central Excise – Cenvat Credit – shortages of inputs noticed during the physical verification of the inputs in the presence of independent witnesses – the plea of accounting mistakes is not convincing – appellants reversed the cenvat credit involved – penalty of Rs 10,000/- is fair.

RG1 – stock of finished goods found in excess - mere non-entry of production in the RGI register is not sufficient for liability to confiscation in the absence of any corresponding material of clandestine clearance - the confiscation of the unaccounted goods is not sustainable.: DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-770-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s GNA Udyog Ltd Vs CCE, Jalandhar (Dated: March 13, 2008)

Central Excise - Demand of interest raised and penalty imposed for differential duty paid on supplementary invoices - In view of the fact that the Apex Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal in the case of CCE, Aurangabad Vs Rucha Engg Ltd , no interest nor penalty can be imposed on the differential duty paid on supplementary invoices - Assessee's appeal allowed : DELHI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-768-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

Core Emballage Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: April 30, 2008)

ST - GTA Service - Assessee pays full tax and fails to avail 75% rebate on gross amount of freight paid on GTA Service - Refund - Partially granted and partly rejected on the ground of limitation - Commissioner(A) allows - CCE directs filing of fresh appeal against AC's order allowing refund - Assessee argues OIO merged with the Commissioner(A) order - Commissioner(A) rules doctrine of merger not applicable - Since the service tax not passed on to consumers and there is enough evidence to indicate that there has been no change in the price of goods pre-tax and post-tax period, refund claim is admissible - Assessee's appeal allowed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-767-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Harinder Goyal Vs CCE, Chandigar (Dated: April 11, 2008)

ST - Business Auxiliary Service - Assessee maintains a retail outlet which is owned and operated by HPCL - provides several activities - Revenue treats it as BAS and raises demand and impsoes penalty - Prima facie, the assessee is providing BAS on which service tax may be payable - Pre-deposit ordered : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-112-SC-CUS.pdf + sc cus story.pdf

CC (Preventive), Gujarat Vs M/s Reliance Petroleum Ltd (Dated: May 16, 2008)

Customs – Interpretation of exemption notification: Exemption was granted to equipments made to be used for a particular purpose. A contextual meaning to the entries, keeping in view the nature of exemption sought to be granted by reason of the said notification, must be assigned. The crane was to be shifted from place to place covering a huge area. Its services were required at a large number of places. It has been found that the description of the crane, technically given as Heavy Duty Crane was, in fact, a mobile crane. Only with a view to provide mobility thereto, a self-propelled modular transport system had been provided. It had to be consigned in different parts for convenience of transport so as to enable the importer to reassemble the same. It was on that basis, the equipment was found classifiable under Heading 84.26 and not 8724.90. In the alternative, the goods were found to be falling under serial No.18 of the notification. This finding of fact is not in question. What is in question is that only the crane part of the equipment would come within the purview of the exemption notification and not the entire equipment. The purpose for which the exemption was granted must be considered in its entirety. The purpose of grant for exemption cannot be lost sight of. The Central Government must be held to be aware, if not of the equipment itself, but about the nature thereof which would be required for setting up a crude oil refinery. An exemption notification should be construed directly but it is also well settled that interpretation of an exemption notification would depend upon the nature and extent thereof.

Customs- Valuation: So far as the valuation aspect is concerned, why a different view has been taken from the one disclosed in the invoices has not been spelt out by the assessing authority. The valuation was found to be a plausible one. It was a second hand machinery. Valuation of the equipment which was in the mind of the expert of the equipment in question was found as of fact to be of different nature. Those who deal with valuation of a second -hand machinery and valuation of a newly manufactured equipment may be different persons. No fraud on the part of the assessee has been alleged. No illegality or any suppression has also been alleged.

The Appellate Authority has gone into the said question at some details. Its finding to the effect that addition of 1% of the value of the imported goods towards the transportation charges is contrary to Rule 9 (2)(b) of the Valuation Rules has not been disputed. The Appellate Authority, furthermore, apart from arriving at a finding of fact that the crane which was in the mind of the expert was different from the one which was imported by the respondent herein, also opined that the crane was a second hand machinery which had been imported for a specific object to be carried out and has not been purchased by the appellant, was also a relevant factor which, however, rightly been taken into consideration. : SUPREME COURT ;

2008-TIOL-769-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Dell India Private Limited Vs CC, Bangalore (Dated: March 10, 2008)

Monitors imported along with CPU – eligible for exemption : BANGALORE CESTAT;

ddt 19 may.pdf + write_off.pdf

Service tax on trade associations;

tiol oil story.pdf

Service Tax Mop-up: Telecom shows negative growth; Revenue braces up to target Oil Cos;

guest article.pdf

Export duty on steel: Is duty leviable on supplies to SEZ developers?

The Insider

CBEC Members' likely charges in early April!

mbuzz621.pdf

MoS(Banking) calls for greater financial sector cooperation between India and China;

mbuzz620.pdf

TRAI seeks views on draft Satellite Radio policy guidelines;

mbuzz619.pdf

REC sanctions highest ever fund for NTPC-TNEB mega project;

mbuzz618.pdf

Govt says textiles to attract Rs 1, 50,000 crore investment by 2010 ;