DGFT validates all old Public Notices, Circulars etc - is it correct? (See 'DDT' which turns 900 today)

Chakka jam by transporters continues for second day; Association regrets inconvenience caused to general public

Govt appoints Sushma Singh as new I&B Secretary

Chennai Customs seizes Ketamine worth Rs 4.97 Crore;

DRI finally wins mega-crore Customs case against Seagrams India; Tribunal upholds Revenue's valuation methods;

Govt asks OMCs to make available unbranded diesel;

Growth may hover around 8% this fiscal: Montek;

ddt 3 july.pdf

Private Bonded Warehouses – EOUs – Who should give permission – CBEC clarifies;

cobweb.pdf

Avenues for CBDT to consolidate 'Big Brother' role in revenue mop-up!

mbuzz768.pdf

Cabinet gives nod for Land Ports Authority of India + removal of local curbs for setting up industries;

mbuzz767.pdf

Govt to gradually shift to Accrual System of Accounting;

mbuzz766.pdf

Labour market discrimination still a big problem in OECD countries;

mbuzz765.pdf

Isabel Guerrero elevated as Vice President of WB for South Asia region;

2008-TIOL-293-ITAT-MAD.pdf + M.N. Rajaraman story.pdf

Shri M N Rajaraman, Vs The ACIT, Chennai-34 ( Dated : March 14, 2008 )

Income disclosed and return filed after raid – not voluntary; penalty leviable: It is amply clear that, only after the Revenue was in the possession of incriminating materials pertaining to undisclosed income of the assessee found during the search of SRM Group and summons u/s 131(1) were issued to the assessee, did the assessee come out with payment of advance tax and disclosure of additional income by a revised return. Hence, on the touchstone of these decisions and discussions, the assessee's action of paying tax and filing revised return cannot be called to be a voluntary one. :CHENNAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-292-ITAT-HYD.pdf

New Tirumala Music Centre Vs Income Tax, Hyderabad ( Dated : April 16, 2008 )

At the time of assessment assessee was not able to explain the details as the books were under seizure in search relating to another party Case - remanded to AO for fresh assessment :HYDERABAD ITAT;

2008-TIOL-291-ITAT-DEL.pdf

ITO, New Delhi Vs Shri R K Gupta ( Dated : January 18, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee  contends no notice issued u/s 143(2) - CIT(A) dismisses the appeal on the ground that a notice "appears" to have been issued - We are unable to appreciate how in the absence of any evidence for issue or service of the notice, or even a copy of the notice on file, such a finding could have been recorded by the CIT(A). The assessee's cross objection is allowed and the appeals filed by the department are dismissed as infructuous. :DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-290-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Grover International Vs The ACIT, Panipat ( Dated : January 4, 2008 )

The decision of one High Court is neither binding precedent for another High Court or for Courts or Tribunals outside its own territorial jurisdiction. It is well settled that the decision of a High Court will have the force of binding precedent only in the state or territories in which the Court has jurisdiction. In other states or outside the territorial jurisdiction of High Court it may, at best, have only a persuasive effect.

Income from the sale of DEPB is not eligible for deduction u/s 80IB of I.T. Act. Judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court (jurisdictional in this case) in the case of Liberty (I) v/s. CIT 293 ITR 520(P&H) followed. :DELHI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1041-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + Inox Air Products story.pdf

CCE & CC, Nashik Vs M/s Inox Air Products (Dated : May 23, 2008)

Committee of Commissioners – One head two hat syndrome continues unabated – Tribunal dismisses Revenue appeal.

A Committee of two Commissioners necessarily implies a Committee consisting of two individuals and not one individual holding additional charge of another Commissionerate and a contrary interpretation would render the 2005 Amendment to the Customs and Excise law nugatory – Tribunal decision in Indian Plastics Ltd. [ 2007-TIOL-2216-CESTAT-Kol ] followed. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1040-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + CPCL story.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Chennai Petroleum Corporation Ltd (Dated : May 13, 2008)

Central Excise – duty demanded on Fuel Oil captively used for manufacture of Raw Naphtha which is cleared at Nil rate of duty – whether the special provisions of erstwhile Rule 143 A of the Central Excise Rules will continue to have effect under the new Central Excise Rules – matter referred to Larger Bench.: CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1038-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CCE, Ahmedabad Vs M/s The Arvind Mills Ltd (Dated : June 9, 2008)

Central Excise – Cenvat Credit – cross utilization of Cenvat credit of additional duty of excise under Textile and Textile Articles Act for payment of Additional duty under Goods of Special Importance Act – Since there is no stay of the operation of the Tribunal decision in case of M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, credit is allowed and there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals): AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1037-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Aditya Petrochemicals Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Nashik (Dated : April 7, 2008)

Naphtha distillates manufactured by the applicants and used for captive consumption for use in the manufacture of HR SOL and thinners - no evidence brought on record that the goods are being cleared from the factor as fuel for spark ignition engines - There is no dispute that the goods i.e. solvents have been sold to industries for use in pharmaceuticals, paints and rubber industries – benefit of captive consumption not deniable – Strong prima facie case – unconditional waiver of pre-deposit granted and recovery stayed. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1039-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Grasim Industires Vs CCE, Jaipur- II (Dated : February 7, 2008)

Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on Mobile phones – no allegation in the show cause notice that the mobile phones were not use in the business activity of the appellant – following Tribunal decision in Indian Rayon 2006-TIOL-1152-CESTAT-MUM , appeal allowed with consequential relief. :DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1036-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Idea Mobile Communication Ltd Vs CCE, Rohtak (Dated : May 5, 2008)

ST - Sale of SIM Cards - Revenue raises demand on sale of SIM cards - Assessee pleads since they have paid sales tax on the sale, service tax cannot be demanded on the same - The assessee has prima facie made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit - Stay granted :DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft08not022.pdf

Govt puts restriction on export of maize corn;

dgft08pn038.pdf

DGFT fixes 3% DEPB rate for glass bottles in Chemical Group;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1035-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Dewan Steel Industries Vs CC, Amritsar (Dated : February 6, 2008)

Customs – import of Heavy Melting Scrap – confiscation of the goods on the ground that the same are serviceable material though the appellant requested the customs authorities to mutilate before clearance – the request can not be rejected on the ground that the importer is only a trader but not a manufacturer – it can not be held that prime material was imported in the grab of scrap - goods to be released on payment of appropriate Customs duty at the declared value by classifying it under Tariff Heading 7204.49 of the Customs Tariff Act. : DELHI CESTAT;