Urban Development Minister launches e-gazette as part of e-governance scheme;

Delhi Govt to subsidise LPG price hike;

President appoints one Addl Judge in Karnataka HC;

Overseas Ministry launches scheme to protect Indian women deserted by NRI husbands;

RBI Governor non-committal on SLR status to oil bonds; hails Govt decision to hike petro prices; Inflation touches 8.25% mark;

ddt 6 june .pdf

Indian Austerity Service : Babus asked to tighten belts – Austerity in Administration;

icecube.pdf

Temporary relief for Oil Cos; States hell bent on taxing 'entry' of petro goods;

mbuzz679.pdf

Vice President presents Earth Eco-Warrior Awards, 2008;

mbuzz678.pdf

House Panel seeks views on FDI into retail sector;

mbuzz677.pdf

OECD Ministerial Council resolves to forge more coherence in development policy initiatives;

mbuzz676.pdf

RBI directs banks not to deny banking facilities to visually challenged ;

2008-TIOL-228-ITAT-DEL.pdf + modi story.pdf

DCIT, Circle 5 (1), New Delhi Vs M/s Modi Rubber Limited ( Dated : January 18, 2008 )

Deduction for leave salary payable - There is no dispute that the provision has been made in accordance with the rules of the company. The assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting and, therefore, any liability which has accrued in the relevant year of account is allowable as a deduction. There is no suggestion that the liability is a contingent liability.

Assessee's appeal allowed – In the same case Revenu's appeal does not survive : DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-227-ITAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Koolnest (P) Ltd Vs ACIT ( Dated : January 4, 2008 )

The appellant's business comprises of providing air conditioning facilities to various clients. The appellant purchases air-conditioners, electrical panels and other materials, assembled these materials and then installed these in the premises of various customers. The appellant claims deduction under Section 80-IA, considering these to be a manufacturing activity. The Department holds that this is a construction activity and disallows the deduction claim under Section 80-IA. The Department further imposes penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the basis that there has been a concealment of income to the extent of the wrong claim made by the appellant.

On appeal, the ITAT holds that the benefit of the Apex Court's decision in CIT v N.C.Budharaja & Co (wherein the assessee had claimed construction of a dam also to be manufacture) is available to the assessee as it was under the impression that the activity of providing air-conditioning systems that required all the activities to be carried out at the site could be termed as manufacture and that, such a genuine impression could not lead to concealment. The penalty is accordingly quashed. : BANGALORE ITAT;

2008-TIOL-226-ITAT-DEL.pdf

DCIT, Circle 2 (1), New Delhi Vs M/s BHP Mineral India (P) Ltd ( Dated : March 7, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee is into mining and exploration - makes provision for doubtful deposits - later realises that since it was not a crystallised liability no deduction can be claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) - revised return filed - Revenue claims that the revised return is not valid as it was filed only after the wrong particulars were detected - Penalty imposed - Since the Revenue fails to prove that the revised return was filed only after it was detected by the AO nor there is any reason recorded in the assessment order, the culpable state of mind cannot be proved - Penalty u/s 271(1)(9) set aside - Revenue's appeal dismissed : DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-225-ITAT-BANG.pdf

DCIT, Circle-11 (1), Bangalore Vs M/S IBM Global Services (India) P Ltd ( Dated : February 29, 2008 )

This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of the CIT(A) upholding the claim of the assessee that brought forward losses, unabsorbed depreciation etc. are not to be adjusted against the income computed u/s 10A of the IT Act.

The ITAT holds, interalia, that the procedure of assessment u/s 10A would be to treat the unit now covered by Section 10A as the only unit which was not falling under Section 10A earlier. Consequently, it could not be said that the unit which is now being covered by Section 10A has no carried forward loss to be set off and unabsorbed depreciation and it at all it had, it got adjusted against the income of the earlier assessment years. Revenue's appeal dismissed : BANGALORE ITAT;

cbecorder132_2008.pdf

CBEC issues third transfer order of 33 Commissioners;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-887-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + credit story.pdf

M/s Technova Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Raigad ( Dated: April 23, 2008 )

Wrongly taken credit, before being utilized, reversed voluntarily – Prima facie no cause for imposition of interest or penalty

P&H decision in Maruti Udyog LTd. 2006-TIOL-308-HC-P&H-CX relied. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-886-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg Co Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai-II ( Dated: January 8, 2008 )

Central Excise – classification – the appellants are challenging only the penalty imposed – they were following an earlier order of the collector on classification issue which was set aside by the CESTAT – all the clearances were made pursuant to approved classification list - the appellants cannot be held to have cleared the goods by mis-classifying and mis-declaring the same – penalty set aside. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-885-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs CCE, Raipur ( Dated: January 18, 2008 )

Items Mudgun clay, EBT filling mass and HSS Tool Bits are inputs and not capital goods  - Credit of entire duty paid available without restriction. : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-884-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CCE, Hyderabad Vs M/s Shaw Wallace Company Ltd ( Dated: January 30, 2008 )

Central Excise – excisability – the activity of mixing essences does not bring into existence any new product for the purpose of excisability – the issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in an earlier order against which no stay has been granted by the Supreme Court – no merit in revenue's appeal. : BANGALORE CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-882-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Prakash Decorators Vs CCE, Jaipur ( Dated: January 15, 2008 )

ST - Mandap keeper service - Assessee pleads that since they were under bona fide belief that solemnising marriage is a religious act, it was not liable to tax - however, Revenue insists that afer an Explanation was inserted, social function includes marriage and the assessee is liable for penalty as well - It is a fit case for invocation of Sec 80 - Penalty set aside : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-881-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s R R Construction Company Vs CCE, Jaipur-I ( Dated: Dec 7, 2008 )

ST - Commercial or industrial construction - Assessee enters into a contract for construction - Later it comes to know about the levy of service tax and takes registertion and deposits tax with interest - Penalty under Sec 76, 77 and 78 imposed - Since there is no suppression of fact and the registration was taken voluntarily and tax deposited, Sec 78 cannot be applied here but penalty under Sections 76 and 77 are sustainable : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt08_068.pdf

CBEC notifies two places in Kerala for loading and unloading of goods;

dgft08pn027.pdf

DGFT amends SION rates of many items like base paper, tissue paper, methanol, film and phenol;

dgft08not014.pdf

DGFT amends SION rates of many items like base paper, tissue paper, methanol, film and phenol;

dgft08cir010.pdf

DGFT clarifies on permitted imports under target plus scheme;

dgft08cir008.pdf

Import of Sandalwood;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-121-SC-CUS.pdf + auto cus story.pdf

CC Vs M/s Auto Ignition Ltd ( Dated : April 23, 2008 )

Customs – exemption - Exemption denied because modvat credit was taken – Department not able to verify whether credit taken or not, but appeals to Supreme Court – Onus is on Revenue to prove - Although even before the Tribunal the Department was not able to verify the aspect as to whether the assessee had claimed MODVAT credit, the Department has chosen to file appeal before this Court. We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that in the absence of any such proof, demand raised by issuing the show cause notices cannot be sustained. Moreover, the onus to prove that the assessee had availed of the MODVAT credit was on the Revenue. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the impugned order of the Tribunal and consequently do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed : SUPREME COURT;

2008-TIOL-883-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CC, New Delhi Vs M/s Hero Honda Motors Limited ( Dated: April 7, 2008 )

It is not relevant as to whether the COD application has been filed before or after filing the appeal – what is relevant is whether the applicant had a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal on time.

Delay of 13 days – Department misled by the date of receipt of order in the Commissionerate – delay due to wrong mention of date of receipt – Plea accepted and COD allowed.

Section 154 of Customs Act - On a plain reading it is manifest that not only clerical or arithmetical mistake in any decision or order, but errors arising from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the concerned authority.

Import of Cutting Tools – in B/E benefit of notification claimed under a wrong serial number which covers Textile Garments – Duty liability assessed accordingly by the EDI system – Excess duty paid – mention of serial no. 281 instead of serial no. 337 was an accidental slip on the part of the respondent leading to mistake in the calculation of duty and the respondent should not be denied the benefit of the remedy under section 154 of Customs Act.

Decisions of Supreme Court in Flock(I) and Priya Blue Industries relied upon by the Revenue can not be applied in cases covered by Section 154 of the Act and where refund is the logical consequence of correction of some clerical or accidental error under section 154, the person should not be denied the benefit merely because he did not prefer appeal against the assessment order. What benefit he is actually entitled to, as a consequence, is to be considered by the Proper Officer : DELHI CESTAT;