Export Duty on Steel Products cleared to SEZ – at least clarify who has to pay the duty (See 'DDT')

Pan Masala under compounded Levy: You pay less by hiking your MRP! (See 'DDT')

Service Tax on GTA: Govt amenable to proposal to enhance abatement, says CBEC Member V Sridhar + Truckers' talks with Govt fail; Toll tax not to be reduced;

CBDT reverses its earlier order - posts back Mr A K Sinha to Coordination & Systems in Board + transfers Mr K Madhavan Nair to Bangalore as DG(Inv);

IMF asks India to tighten monetary policy tools;

SC stays development of Mundra SEZ; Notice issued;

ddt 02 july.pdf

Draconian attachment provisions in Central Excise and Service Tax too;

spl down.pdf

U, Me Aur Hum;

mbuzz764.pdf

National Perspective Plan to focus on Himalayan & Peninsular Rivers Development;

mbuzz763.pdf

Consolidated Policy on FDI: Govt corrects typo errors;

mbuzz762.pdf

PM releases North Eastern Region Vision 2020 roadmap;

2008-TIOL-332-HC-RAJ-IT.pdf

CIT, Bikaner Vs Ram Dev Kumar Chitlangia (Dated : May 16, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessees get certain amounts as gifts from an NRI - AO makes additions - CIT(A) deletes the addition and Tribunal upholds the order - Given that the donors are identified; the gifted amounts have been paid through banking channel and are also blood relations, and the AO has not found out any adverse findings, the concurrent findings of the lower authorities cannot be faulted with - Revenue's appeal dismissed : RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ;

2008-TIOL-331-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

CIT Vs Estel Communications (P) Ltd (Dated : March 7, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee buys internet bandwidth from an American company and sells the same to its customers in India - AO treats it as taxable u/s 9(1)(vii) and insists on TDS - Tribunal disagrees - Held, since the payment was made for a simple purchase of internet bandwidth, no technical services were provided - Revenue's appeal dismissed : DELHI HIGH COURT ;

2008-TIOL-289-ITAT-MAD.pdf + covanta story.pdf

Covanta Samalpatti Operating Private Limited Vs The ACIT, Chennai (Dated : December 10, 2007)

Income Tax - Assessee enters into a service contract to operate & maintain power plant set up by another enterprise - claims Sec 80IA(4) benefits - AO denies it and CIT(A) agrees with him - Since the assessee had only service contract and it had no ownership right over the electricity generated it is not entitled to Sec 80IA(4)(iv)(a) benefits - what further disentitles it is the works contract natur of the contract which was excluded by an Explanation inserted vide Finance Act 2007 with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000

Unlike Sec 80IA(4)(i) which confers such benefits to even an enterprise which develops, operates and maintains infrastructural facility, Sec 80IA(4)(iv) does not confer similar benefits to enterprise manning service contract for power plants :CHENNAI ITAT ;

2008-TIOL-288-ITAT-MUM.pdf

Mrs Mudra G Nanavati Vs The DCIT, Mumbai- 20 (Dated : May 23, 2008)

Income Tax - Search u/s 132 - Notice u/s 158BC - Assessee pleads limitation as notice u/s 143(2) was issued beyond the time limit - Held, the issue of notice u/s 143(2) within the time-frame prescribed is mandatory for block assessment - Revenue's appeal dismissed :MUMBAI ITAT ;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1034-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + Berger Story.pdf

Berger Paints India Ltd Vs CCE, Goa (Dated : June 13, 2008)

Central Excise - WZB of Tribunal refuses to modify earlier order asking for pre-deposit of Rs.2.5 Cr – time extended for payment of amount – SZB decision in assessees own case of no help : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1033-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + nccd story.pdf

CCE, Trichy Vs M/s Lakshmi Packagings Ltd (Dated : May 2, 2008)

NCCD – exemption notification does not have retrospective effect - In the case of Spice Telecom = 2006-TIOL-146-SC-CUS-LB , it was held by the apex court that an Exemption Notification ordinarily could not be presumed to be retrospective in the absence of express provision to this effect in the Notification.  There can be no rebuttal of the proposition that addition of NCCD to the list of Basic Excise Duty and Additional Duty of Excise For the purpose of exemption is a substantive amendment. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that NCCD is a comparatively a new levy which was brought into force by the Finance Act, 2001. The Central Government, obviously, did not intend to grant exemption in respect of NCCD prior to 17.10.2002. Had it been otherwise, NCCD could also have been added to the list of duties of excise in Notification No.121/94 earlier. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1032-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Mumbai Vs Vinit Industries (Dated : February 26, 2008)

Burden to prove that preparation did not contain principal active ingredients less than 5% as claimed by assessee was on Revenue – no fault in the CCE extending the benefit of notification 101/66-CE.

Surface active preparations - Notification 101/66-CE - matter relates to the year 1984- 85 and the issue has been decided by the Commissioner in the year 2000 contending that the matter is more than 15 years old and the percentage of active ingredient cannot be decided at this stage – Appeals of Revenue rejected. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1031-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Ispat Industies Ltd Vs CCE, Aurangabad (Dated : January 18, 2008)

Central Excise – Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit – penalty imposed on the ground that the appellant had facilitated the diversion of the material to other while the credit was availed by their buyer – in view of the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant was not aware of the misuse of Cenvat invoices, pre-deposit waived. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1029-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Sun Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai-II (Dated: April 29, 2008)

ST - Consulting Engineer Service - Assessee pleads that it only received technical knowhow for manufacture of certain goods - Going by the content of the agreement, the assessee prima facie makes strong case of waiver of pre-deposit : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1028-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur-I (Dated: May 30, 2008)

ST - Cenvat Credit - Assessee utilises credit in excess of 35% as prescribed by Rule 3(3) for tax payable on the output service - assessee argues that the restriction is applicable only when the output service is exempted, and since telephone service is not exempted, the restriction is not applicable - Assessee has prima facie made a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit :DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft08pn037.pdf

DGFT notifies Glass Inners for Vacuum flasks for Focus Products Scheme;

dgft08not021.pdf

DGFT clarifies whenever an export obligation mentioned in LoP gets adversely affected because of restrictions imposed, it automatically gets extended;

dgft08not020.pdf

Earlier notifications, Circulars also deemed to be in force as per present policy;

cuscir08_09.pdf

Appointment /Licensing of Public/ Private Bonded Warehouses u/s 57 and 58 and Grant of permission by Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner of Customs for in-bond manufacturing activities u/s 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 – Clarification thereto – reg.

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1030-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

East & West Shipping Agency Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: April 10, 2008)

Once the Settlement Commission has granted immunity to Pradeep Ambre, Power of Attorney holder of CHA from penalty and held that he cannot be held to have any conscious knowledge of mis-declaration, the adjudicating authority should not have revoked the CHA licence – order set aside and appeal allowed. : MUMBAI CESTAT;