CBEC fails to issue AC/DCs transfer order this week also;

Govt to convene two-day special session of LS on July 21; Voting on no-confidence motion to take place next day;

Production of pre-shipment Certificate for clearance of imported textiles and textile articles - DGFT clarifies ( See 'DTT')

Learn from West, nip Indian Derivatives scam in the bud! (See 'The Ice Cubes' Column)

Govt to convene two-day special session of LS on July 21; Voting on no-confidence motion to take place next day;

ddt 08 july.pdf

Textile Imports from Pakistan or Sri Lanka – Duty reduced to 10%;

icecubes.pdf

Learn from West, nip Indian Derivatives scam in the bud!

mbuzz789.pdf

Industrial Production grows by 3.8% in May; Slowdown showing signs;

mbuzz788.pdf

Inflation touches 11.9%; MoF closely monitoring it;

ORDER

cbdtnotification014_2008.pdf

CBDT gives NFSG benefits to 52 JCITs;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-340-HC-RAJ-IT.pdf

CIT Vs Shri Ram Singh ( Dated : May 20, 2008 )

Income Tax Act - Section 147 - if in the course of proceedings under Section 147, the AO were to come to conclusion, that any income chargeable to tax, which, according to his “reason to believe”, had escaped assessment for any assessment year, did not escape assessment, then, the mere fact, that the Assessing Officer entertained a reason to believe, albeit even a genuine reason to believe, would not continue to vest him with the jurisdiction, to subject to tax, any other income, chargeable to tax, which the Assessing Officer may find to have escaped assessment, and which may come to his notice subsequently, in the course of proceedings under Section 147. : RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-339-HC-KOL-IT.pdf

CIT, Kolkata Vs Orient Paper & Industries Ltd ( Dated : March 12, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee fails to claim deduction in return as dispute is pending before the High Court - Held, merely because the assessee does not claims a deduction, it does not disentitle it from claiming the same as long as the assessee's view point related to sales tax is not settled by the court - no law point - Revenue's appeal rejected: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-311-ITAT-DEL.pdf + cit story.pdf

D K Singhal Vs CIT, Delhi ( Dated : January 31, 2008 )

CIT can assume jurisdiction suo moto if the order of the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The CIT has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, ( i ) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

If one of them is absent -if the order of the ITO is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue -recourse cannot be had to s. 263(1). There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the AO. However an incorrect application of law or framing the assessment without making any inquiry on the facts and figures submitted by the assessee where circumstances are such which warrants proper inquiry to be made before accepting the same, will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous.

Absence of any inquiry, much less a proper inquiry by the Assessing Officer makes the order erroneous; the prerequisite to exercise of jurisdiction by the CIT suo moto under it, is that the order of the ITO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Applying the proposition of law with regard to scope of sec. 263, it is apparent that in the instant case lack of any inquiry by the AO and accepting the income surrendered by the assessee, has rendered the order of AO erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. : DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-310-ITAT-HYD.pdf

Healthware Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Hyderabad ( Dated : March 24, 2008 )

Provision towards warranty disallowed by the Tribunal as the claim was arrived at on an unscientific basis – CIT (A)'s Order upheld by Tribunal

The assessee made a provision towards warranty in the assessment year and debited a portion of the revenue to the profit and loss account - Assessing Officer held it to be a contingent liability and hence disallowed the claim of the assessee - CIT (A) held that the assessee has not been following a scientific basis for making the said provision – Tribunal following an earlier Order in assessee's own case has rejected the assessee's appeal : HYDERABAD ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1089-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + crompton story.pdf

M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai-III (Dated : May 8, 2008)

Department cannot blow hot and cold at the same time – Once the cenvatted spares have been cleared on payment of duty, there cannot be a proposal to deny the credit – Tribunal sets aside Rs 6.81 crores religiously confirmed by the Commissioner. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1088-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s PL Agro Technologies Ltd Vs CCE, Pondicherry (Dated : May 16, 2008)

Central Excise – recovery of erroneous refund on the ground of unjust enrichment – appellants should get another opportunity to adduce evidence to establish their claim – matter remanded. : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1087-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam (Dated : Feburary 12, 2008)

Central Excise – Valuation – Revenue neutrality to be considered for waiver of pre-deposit : BANGALORE CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1085-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Lawson Travel & Tours (India) Pvt Ltd Vs CC & CCE, Cochin (Dated : April 22, 2008)

Service Tax – Tax dues partly paid before issue of SCN and partly before the passing of O-I-O – Penalty not leviable in such cases – Interest payable : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1084-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Cameo Corporation Services Ltd Vs CST, Chennai (Dated : Feburary 27, 2008)

Service Tax – Share Transfer Agent's service is not taxable under Business Auxiliary Service prior to 01.05.06 - Tribunal : CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft08cir018.pdf

Ban on maize exports: DGFT clarifies ban not to apply to consignments handed over to Customs;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1090-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + Kerala State Electricity Board story.pdf

M/s Kerala State Electricity Board Vs CC, Kochi (Dated : March 11, 2008)

Project imports – Project Import Regulations allow import of spares even for maintenance – The Regulations allow import of upto 10% of the contract value allowed for spares – Non application of mind by the lower authority – Appeal allowed - Tribunal

The lower authority has not gone through the Project Contract clearly. There is no rule that all the required items should be imported at the time of initial import of the machinery (Para 6)

Lower authority has given a finding that the spares imported for maintenance are not entitled for the concessional assessment. This is also incorrect as he has not read the Heading 98.01 which itself covers the imported spares which are essential for the maintenance (Para 6) : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1086-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Sterlite Optical Technologies Vs CC (Exp) ACC, Mumbai (Dated : January 8, 2008)

Customs – conversion of Shipping Bill into Drawback Shipping bill – the decision of the Tribunal in Man Industries Ltd is squarely applicable to the facts of the case and the concerned authorities are directed to allow the appellant to get the shipping bills amended under Section 149 of the Customs Act. . :MUMBAI CESTAT;