FM okays 13 FDI proposals worth Rs 1525 Crore; M/s Golboot Holdings, Cyprus (Rs 700 Cr) and M/s Infia Rizing Fund (Rs 550 Cr) prominently figure in list (See 'Common Basket')

Delhi Zonal Unit of DRI seizes 300 litre of precursor chemical; apprehends Punjab Police Head Constable + Chennai DRI seizes narco-coated tablets worth Rs one Crore from post offices

Centre says no to division of West Bengal on Gorkhaland issue;

CBDT + CBEC step up approval activities to meet new AGT Schedule;

National Commission for Scheduled Castes says atrocities against Dalits are worst in Uttar Pradesh;

ddt 13 june.pdf + mo_circular.pdf + letter.pdf

Service tax on bed rolls….. The activity of supplying bed rolls by contractors to Indian Railways for use by upper class passengers in trains is a taxable service says DGCEI and DGST;

editorial.pdf

Economy faces risk of sovereign rating downgrade and stagflation;

fdi_cleared.pdf

13 FDI Proposals Cleared;

mbuzz701.pdf

India to host Kimberley process meet next week;

mbuzz700.pdf

Govt gives nod for three more tourist circuits;

mbuzz699.pdf

Cabinet okays nutrient based pricing regime for all subsidised fertilisers ;

2008-TIOL-241-ITAT-PUNE-SB.pdf + sb story.pdf

M/s B G Chitale Vs DCIT (Dated: June 5, 2008)

Process of standardization and pasteurization of milk amounts to processing but does not amount to manufacture / production for the purpose of claiming deduction under sections 80-I and 80HHA of the Act. It does not go beyond the stages of "processing" and by this processing it has become little more "clean" and "more fit" for consumption. But the milk in its raw stage was also fit for consumption. Assessee does processing. But alt processing does not amount to production of an article or thing. If the assessee markets curd, ghee or other products after processing, that amounts to "manufacture or production of an article or thing". Pasteurization and standardization does not amount to production. : PUNE ITAT ( SPECIAL BENCH ) ;

2008-TIOL-240-ITAT-BANG.pdf

DCIT, Bangalore Vs M/s United Breweries Ltd (Dated: March 28, 2008)

United Breweries Ltd (‘UBL') had entered into an agreement dated 1.3.1998 with Karnataka Breweries and Distilleries P Ltd (‘KBDPL') for the hiring of the facilities of KBDPL an had paid an upfront fee for the same. The said agreement provided, interalia, for the right of UBL to use the facilities of KBDPL under UBL's trade mark. UBL claims the Rs 3 crores paid as upfront fee to KBDPL as revenue expenditure, though the said payment had been shown as advances in its Balance Sheet. The CIT(A) holds that since the amount was not recoverable by UBL from KBDPL and also for the fact that KBDPL had offered the said amount of Rs 3 crores for tax, UBL was entitled to treat the payment as revenue expenditure as the said payment was made with a view to improve the production capacity of UBL and was similar to hiring of space for the purpose of business. : BANGALORE ITAT;

2008-TIOL-239-ITAT-DEL.pdf

DCIT, Delhi Vs M/s L G Electronics India Pvt Ltd (Dated: March 31, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee files return but revises it before the end of limition period - AO says since an order u/s 143(1) is equivalent to an order of assessment, the revised return cannot be taken note of - CIT(A) sets aside the AO's order - It is settled law that an order u/s 143(1) is a mere intimation and cannot be considered as an order of assessment u/s 143(3), the CIT(A) order upheld - Revenue's appeal rejected : DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-238-ITAT-BANG.pdf

DCIT, Bangalore Vs M/s Sun Micro Systems India Pvt Ltd (Dated: January 4, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee had considered the salary increase over the months and had correspondingly effected TDS, which resulted in an uneven deduction of tax on a month to month basis. The Department contends that there has been an uneven deduction of tax and charges interest u/s 201(1A). The CIT (A), on appeal considers the provisions of Section 192(3) of the Act which provide the employer the liberty at the time of making the deduction to increase or reduce the amount to be deducted for the purpose of adjusting any excess or deficiency in the deduction in the financial year and holds that the assessee had exercised this liberty and had adjusted the shortfall in the last month of the year and consequently, there is no case for charging of interest u/s 201(1A). Revenue appeal dismissed : BANGALORE ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-924-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + rule 209 story.pdf

CCE, Mumbai Vs Douli's Garments ( Dated: May 8, 2008 )

Central Excise - Provisions of Rule 209A and rule 26 of CER, 2002 are applicable only to an individual person and not a partnership firm :MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-923-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CCE, Bangalore Vs M/s Performance Engineering Company (P) Ltd ( Dated: January 31, 2008 )

Central Excise – marketability of intermediate goods i.e, HIP Sheets used for manufacture of plastic cups – revenue has not produced any proof of marketability of the goods – no error in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) – revenue appeal dismissed. :BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-922-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

Kamini Ispat Ltd Vs CC & CCE, Hyderabad ( Dated: January 3, 2008 )

The letter of the Superintendent (Appeals) conveying the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not an appealable order– Appellants directed to approach revenue for issue of an appealable order :BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-921-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Premier Polytronics Pvt Ltd CCE, Coimbatore Vs CCE, Coimbatore ( Dated: March 26, 2008 )

Central Excise – Modvat credit wrongly availed – since the credit was reversed before issue of Show Cause Notice, penalty under Rule 57 I(4) of the Central Excise Rules is not imposable. :MUMBAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-926-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + Mazgaon story.pdf

M/s Mazgaon Dock Ltd Vs CST, Mumbai ( Dated: April 29, 2008 )

Mazgaon Dock Ltd wins Rs.6.18 crores Service Tax case – Providing Services of Chipping, Painting and repairing of Ships and Vessels under authorization of Mumbai Port Trust is not “Port Service”

Issue no longer res integra – Tribunal decision in Homa Engineering Works 2007-TIOL-769-CESTAT-MUM relied in Velji P & Sons 2007-TIOL-1452-CESTAT-AHM and Civil Appeal against this decision dismissed by Supreme Court 2008-TIOL-68-SC-ST on the ground that the Tribunal decision in Homa Engineering Works not appealed against by the Revenue :MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-925-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Hercules Hoists Limited Vs CCE, Mumbai-III ( Dated: April 9, 2008 )

Applicants have paid service tax on the erection and commissioning charges during the period July, 2005 to March, 2006, and therefore, prima facie cannot be called upon to pay Central Excise duty also for the same period – Pre-deposit waived and Stay granted. : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-920-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Marvel Apparels And 21 Others Vs CC, TRICHY ( Dated: March 26, 2008 )

Customs – denial of duty draw back – port records show the entry of the goods after 31.12.98 whereas as per the shipping bills, the goods were stuffed, examined and cleared for export earlier - in all cases, the examination report and let export order of the competent officers of customs were made on or before 31.12.1998 - the Commissioner has relied solely on the Port Trust records to find that the goods covered by the Shipping Bill(s) reached the port on a date beyond 31.12.98 – impugned orders set aside. :MUMBAI CESTAT;