Kolkata DRI seizes FICN worth Rs 38 lakh; arrests Bangladeshi couples after a chase from Petrapol;

UN says private sector needs to hugely invest to regulate climate change;

WTO rejects US complaint against India levying CVD on liquor import;

Bombay HC orders cancellation of duty-free operations of DFS India at Sahar Airport;

Navaratnas for top world Customs job (See 'DDT');

Target 4 Lakh Crores – Prosecute the non filers and the stop filers - FM tells CCIT and DGs (See 'DDT');

ddt 10 june.pdf

Ban/restriction on export of non-basmati rice – DGFT clarifies ;

stgst.pdf

Service Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme: Lofty Scheme for a paltry sum?

The Insider

Be empirical, shift AGT deadline to June 30;

mbuzz689.pdf

Special cell set up to counter growing threat to space assets ;

mbuzz688.pdf

'Save Tiger' is global buzzword; Conservationists join WB Forum ;

2008-TIOL-309-HC-DEL-IT.pdf + hc story.pdf

M/s Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd Vs CIT, Delhi (Dated: April 29, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee enters into agreement with a non-resident company for transfer of technical knowhow - Deduction claimed for royalty payments - Revenue disallows - Tribunal allows - Held, sine the transfer was only in relation to right to use and not a sale of technical knowhow where the assessee had the freedom to sub-lease the same, it is revenue expenditure

Good work reward - Assessee claims deduction for the same - AO treats it as bonus u/s 36(1)(ii) - Since it is not covered under the types of bonus covered under the Bonus Payment Act and is basically an ex-gratia payment, it is not covered under Sec 36(1)(ii) of the Act. : DELHI HIGH COURT ;

2008-TIOL-308-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

CIT, Delhi Vs M/s Sobti Construction (India) (Dated: April 25, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee is into construction business - Search u/s 132 - AO makes additions - CIT(A) partly allows the assessee's appeal - Tribunal applies Sec 44AD(1) and estimates profit at 8% and directs AO to tax it accordingly - Sec 44AD(1) does not deal with undisclosed receipts but gross receipts and the Tribunal could not have estimated profit at 8% as per the provisions of Sec 44AD(1) for gross receipts exceeding Rs 40 lakh - Revenue's appeal allowed : DELHI HIGH COURT ;

2008-TIOL-233-ITAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Himalaya Drug Co Vs ACIT, Bangalore (Dated: March 28, 2008)

The ITAT passes the following orders, on an appeal filed by the Company against the CIT(A)'s order on certain revenue expenditure items…

++ The AO had treated wedding presentations and family gifts given by the Company as perquisites in the hands of the recipient employees. The ITAT holds that though such gifts definitely improve the relationship of the employer with the employees, there was no contractual obligation for the employee to effect such payments and upholds the CIT(A)'s order that there are perquisites in the hands of the concerned employees.

++ The ITAT holds that amounts paid to a school adjoining the factory of the appellant is to be allowed as the school was located close to the appellant's factory and that, the payment is likely to improve the working atmosphere of the appellant.

++ The ITAT holds that the security charges paid at the residence of the partners has to be allowed as revenue expenditure as the appellant was involved in the manufacture of certain life saving drugs owing to which, the lives of the partners could be in danger. : BANGALORE ITAT;

2008-TIOL-232-ITAT-DEL.pdf

DCIT, Delhi Vs Bharti Comtel Ltd (Dated: March 31, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee claims deduction for salary paid to marketing executives - AO disallows by disputing that the assessee's business had not commenced in the relevant FY - Assessee aruges that once it got the certificate of commencement of business it should not be disputed that its businedd did not commence - Held, evidence shows that the assessee was still exploring some business prospects in basic telephony service by conducting survey, it cannot be said that the business had set up during the FY - Revenue's appeal allowed : DELHI ITAT ;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-125-SC-CX.pdf + sc jobwork story.pdf

CCE, Chandigarh-I Vs M/s IPF Vikram Ltd (Dated: April 30, 2008)

Central Excise valuation - Manufacture on job work – Comparable price or cost construction method to be adopted (old valuation rules) - The assessee is a job worker. Raw material is supplied to it and after processing, the manufactured product is sent back to the depots of the supplier, viz., Hindustan Lever Ltd. For such products, valuation can be done on the basis of price of comparable goods under Rule 6(b )( i ) or failing that under Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules on the basis of the cost of manufacture plus notional profit, in order to arrive at the nearest ascertainable equivalent of the price [stipulated under Section 4(1)(a)] as contemplated under Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 : SUPREME COURT;

2008-TIOL-903-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Madurai Vs M/s Madura Coats Pvt Ltd ( Dated : March 19, 2008 )

Central Excise – interest under Section 11 BB on delayed refund - where a refund claim is rejected by the original authority and subsequently allowed by the appellate authority or by this Tribunal or by the competent court of law, the interest shall be paid to the claimant under Section 11BB of the Act from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of filing of the refund application till the date of actual refund. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-902-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd Vs CCE, Pondicherry ( Dated : March 24, 2008 )

Central Excise – valuation – cost of the used drums used for packing the excisable goods to be included in the value – since the information was furnished in the monthly returns, extended period is not invokable :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-901-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Tractors And Farm Equipments Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy ( Dated : March 24, 2008 )

Central Excise – valuation of goods cleared to sister units – the instant appeal is for refund of the excess duty pursuant to the correct valuation of the impugned goods – on valuation, the appeal has already been remanded – appeal is allowed by way of remand.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-905-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Elecon Cargo Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Delhi ( Dated : March 14, 2008 )

ST - Penalty - Commissioner(A) does not levy penalty by invoking Sec 80 - Commissioner imposes penalty u/s 76 - In view of facts the adjudicating authority has rightly dropped the penalty - Assessee's appeal allowed : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-904-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Surender Singh Chhatwal & Co Vs CCE, Raipur ( Dated : April 9, 2008 )

ST - Site formation and cargo handling service - Assessee gets a contract to construct ash dyke attached to a power plant - argues ash dyke be equated to dams as it is also to prevent entry of water - Prima facie, ash dyke cannot be treated as dam, and the definitiion of site formation is pretty extensive - Pre-deposit of Rs 30 lakh ordered : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-906-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + cus story.pdf

M/s Hitech Print Systems Vs CC, Chennai ( Dated : May 12, 2008 )

Customs - encashment of a bank guarantee as a security for duty in the event of non-fulfillment of export obligation is not a payment of duty – refund to be granted. . It is settled law that the encashment of a bank guarantee executed by an importer as a security for duty payable on the goods imported by them in the event of non-fulfillment of export obligation is not a payment of duty for purposes of Section 27 of the Customs Act vide Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Aristo Spinners Pvt. Ltd. 2007-TIOL-870-CESTAT-MAD affirmed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide 2008-TIOL-87-HC-MAD-CUS . We are of the view that the amount deposited by the appellants in lieu of bank guarantee as security for payment of duty on the subject goods, at the instance of the department's investigating agency, cannot be treated as an amount of duty and the same would partake the character of duty only when it is appropriated towards demand of duty in a quasi judicial action. In this view of the matter, we hold that the amount claimed as refund in this case is not an amount of duty and therefore the time-bar provisions of Section 27 cannot be applied. As the original authority rejected the claim as time-barred and the appellate authority did not examine this issue, we have no option but to set aside both the orders. : CHENNAI CESTAT;