President appoints two Addl Judges of Gujarat HC on full time basis;

IPCA-Ranbaxy alliance gets USFDA nod for marketing of metoclopramide tablets ;

Revenue Secretary goes on 10 days leave; FS to hold addl charge; CBEC sends Addl/JCs' transfer order to FS;

Service tax collections grow by 40% in April; Excise registers 4.4 % growth;

Tourism for poverty elimination: UN sanctions USD five lakh for India;

RBI's Draft Master Circular on Foreign Investment in India (See 'DDT');

ddt 17 june.pdf

Tariff Value of poppy seeds increased;

mbuzz714.pdf

Service Tax mop-up logs 40% growth in April;

mbuzz713.pdf

IPCA-Ranbaxy alliance gets USFDA nod for marketing of metoclopramide tablets;

mbuzz712.pdf

Tourism for poverty elimination: UN contributes USD 500,000 to India;

mbuzz711.pdf

Water pollution found to exceed drinking-standard limits in many OECD farming areas ;

2008-TIOL-251-ITAT-DEL.pdf + notice story.pdf

BHPE Kinhill Joint Venture, Vs ADIT, New Delhi ( Dated : December 14, 2007 )

Onus to prove the service of the notice on the assessee within the statutory period is upon the Assessing Officer and not upon the assessee. as per provisions of Section 143(2) a statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act is required to be served on the assessee within 12 months from the end of the month in which the return has been filed and it is not only required to be issued within 12 months from the end of the month in which the return has been filed. It means that the onus to prove the service of the notice on the assessee within the statutory period is upon the Assessing Officer and not upon the assessee. In the instant case the Assessing Officer has failed to discharge the onus of proving the service of the notice upon the assessee under section 143(2) of the Act within the statutory period of limitation i.e. on or before 31.10.2002 (in the instant case of the assessee) because in the instant case the notice was only issued by the Assessing Officer on 31.10.2002 but neither the same has been received back by the Assessing Officer nor the department is able to prove the service of the notice upon the assessee on 31. 10.2002, therefore, the notice under section 143(2) of the Act is not proved to have been served upon the assessee on or before 31.10.2002 by the Department and, hence, any service of notice thereafter on a subsequent date is barred by a period of limitation as provided under proviso to section 143(2) of the Act.

The assessment proceedings completed in violation of statutory provision of section 143(2) are liable to be cancelled/quashed in case the revenue has failed to establish the service of the notice upon the assessee under section 143(2) within the statutory period of limitation provided under the proviso to section 143(2) then the assessment proceedings completed by the Assessing Officer in violation of statutory provision of section 143(2) are liable to be cancelled/quashed : DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-250-ITAT-MAD.pdf

M/s L & T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Ltd Vs ACIT, Chennai ( Dated : March 28, 2008 )

Income Tax - software expenditure - assessee claims it as revenue expenditure on the ground that it is mere license to use having no enduring benefit-AO disallows and treats it as capital expenditure by arguing that it goes with the hardware and is very much a capital asset - CIT(A) confirms the addition - AO needs to go into details of the exact nature of the software in view of the judicial decisions available before the character of the expenditure can be fixed - Matter remanded :CHENNAI ITAT

2008-TIOL-249-ITAT-DEL.pdf

ITO, New Delhi Vs M/s Fashion Design Council Of India ( Dated : March 14, 2008 )

Income Tax - assessee derives income from sponsorship receipts - pays commission - AO finds that the assessee has committed default under section 201(1)/201(1A) - interest demanded and penalty u/s 271 imposed - CIT(A) deletes penalty on the assessee's plea that after its audit team detected the error, the same was deposited along with interest - Since the assessee was under a bona fide belief that it was not liable to TDS, no mens rea can be attributed - Revenue's appeal dismissed : DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-248-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Mitsubishi Corporation Vs ADIT, New Delhi ( Dated : May 2, 2008 )

Income Tax - Interest under Ss 234B and 234C - Assessee argues tax was paid and no interest it is liable to pay as per Special Bench decision in Motorola Inc Vs DCIT ( 2005-TIOL-103-ITAT-DEL-SB ) - Also argues that TDS was liable to deducted from the payment made to the assessee and it was not liable to pay advance tax u/s 209 - Stay granted but pre-deposit of Rs one crore ordered with out of turn hearing schedule : DELHI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-317-HC-P&H-CX.pdf + control story.pdf

CCE, Panchkula Vs Malcom Pharmaceuticals ( Dated: February 20, 2008 )

Control samples – no duty payable ; when a manufacturer preserves the samples of their product for some period for investigation of complaints, no duty shall be charged on these samples considering that those goods remain within the factory. It was held that the duty shall be charged only when the samples are cleared from the factory.

No penalty for not entering in the records - In our view, in the daily account register only those items are to be entered, which are withdrawn from the factory. Hence, in this appeal, no substantial question of law is arising from the order of the CESTAT : P & H HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-943-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Decorpac Vs CCE, Delhi-II (Dated : May 12, 2008 )

Central Excise - Assessee is an SSI unit - clears manufactured goods for export by merchant exporter - Revenue demands duty and imposed penalty - held, there is no denying that the goods were exported and only procedural violation is being alleged - Since the assessed had deposited reasonably good sum, pre-deposited waived and stay granted : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-942-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Pune Vs M/s Ahmednagar Forgings Ltd (Dated : January 3, 2008 )

Central Excise – differential duty on price escalation – interest – no interest is payable on the differential duty paid- the issues has already been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal – demand of interest set aside – revenue appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order vacating penalty is dismissed. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-941-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Modison Metals Ltd Vs CCE, Damanl (Dated: May 16, 2008)

Central Excise - Single registration - Assessee owns two premises, separated by a vacant plot - Revenue rejects the application on the ground that it can be granted only if the separation is due to a public road, canal or railway line - The correct interpreation of the ligislative intent would be to treat the vacant land as a public road or a railway line - Assessee's appeal allowed : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-940-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + stgst.pdf

M/s M P Power Transmission Co Ltd Vs CCE, Bhopal (Dated: May 2, 2008)

Service Tax – Business Support Services - Power Transmission companies in for a rude 'Shock' – Tribunal directs MP Power Transmission Company to pre-deposit Rs 5 Crore : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-944-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + Rajasthan Spinning story.pdf

CC, Mumbai Vs Rajasthan Spinning And Weaving Mills Ltd (Dated : April 8, 2008 )

Notification 160/92-Cus – only a declaration is to be given that the export goods are manufactured using the machinery imported – evidence not required – DGFT issuing a certificate that export obligation has been fulfilled – Customs cannot dispute the same : MUMBAI CESTAT;