|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Arrest of Jai Bharat Maruti Group Chairman: Customs gets 14 days judicial remand; India cancels Friday's briefing of IAEA Members on safeguard measures; Govt appoints Steel Secretary R S Pandey as new Petroleum Secretary; FM approves 12 FDI proposals worth Rs 354 Crore; Paswan
appeals to Steel Industry to help Govt contain inflation; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
Another Corporate Czar in Customs' net walks through Green Channel with goods worth over Rs 20 Lakhs; N-deal: Historical blunders - once more! Poaching is more convenient in CBEC formations! 2008-TIOL-134-SC-CT.pdf + hearing story.pdf M/s Deepak Agro Foods Vs State Of Rajasthan & ORS ( Dated : July 11, 2008 ) Adjudication without hearing - exercise of jurisdiction in a wrongful manner cannot result in a nullity - it is an illegality, capable of being cured in a duly constituted legal proceedings: All irregular or erroneous or even illegal orders cannot be held to be null and void as there is a fine distinction between the orders which are null and void and orders which are irregular, wrong or illegal. Where an authority making order lacks inherent jurisdiction, such order would be without jurisdiction, null, non est and void ab initio as defect of jurisdiction of an authority goes to the root of the matter and strikes at its very authority to pass any order and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of the parties. However, exercise of jurisdiction in a wrongful manner cannot result in a nullity - it is an illegality, capable of being cured in a duly constituted legal proceedings. Proceedings for assessment under a fiscal statute are not in the nature of judicial proceedings, like proceedings in a suit inasmuch as the assessing officer does not adjudicate on a lis between an assessee and the State and, therefore, the law on the issue laid down under the civil law may not stricto sensu apply to assessment proceedings.:SUPREME COURT; 2008-TIOL-133-SC-CT.pdf + sail story.pdf M/s Steel Authority Of India Ltd Vs STO, Rourkela-I ( Dated : July 10, 2008 ) Order without reason - Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice matter remanded. Why a speaking order'? 1. The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. 2. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. 3. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. 4. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. 5. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. 6. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. 7. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. :SUPREME COURT; FM approves 12 FDI proposals worth Rs 354 Crore; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
2008-TIOL-319-ITAT-DEL.pdf + smithkline story.pdf M/s Smithkline Beecham Asia Limited Vs JCIT, New Delhi ( Dated : June 20, 2008 ) Income Tax - Assessee is 100% subsidiary of UK-based parent company M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Plc - enters into agreement for manufacture and distribution of 'ENO' and 'Crocin' brands - 'ENO' brand was hitherto being manufactured and distributed by another subsidary of the parent company - Assessee company enters into a loan licence agreement with the second subsidiary of the parent company which has so far been manufacturing ENO in India for continuation in manufacture of the same - pays conversion charges to the second subsidary for acquisition of goodwill - AO disallows and CIT(A) terms the same as bogus expenditure to avoid taxes - Held, given the fact that the original agreement does not mandate any such payment from the assessee company to the second subsidiary company and also the fact that the assessee company does not have its own infrastructural facilities for the production and sale of 'ENO' products, the sum paid to the second subsidary under such circumstances was related to taking over the infrastructural facilities for the production and sale of 'ENO' and it was rightly held by Revenue as capital expenditure Assessee receives a payment from the second subsidiary on account of restrictive covenant for not appointing a preferred distributor other than the second susidiary for distribution of pharma product 'Crocin' - claims it as capital receipt - AO terms the same as revenue receipt - In the light of the fact that the assessee has no infrastructure to manufacture and distribute either of the products and the same being manufactured by the second subsidiary on loan licence basis, it would be far-fetched to believe that the assessee's capability to set up a similar infrastructural facility could pose a serious threat to the second subsidiary which has a strong track record of manufacturing and distribution - A payment made for non-existent competition cannot be accepted by the Revenue - Payment is very much revenue receipt - Assessee's appeal dismissed :DELHI ITAT; Uikam Investment & Finance Pvt Limited Vs ACIT, New Delhi ( Dated : April 30, 2008 ) Held, assuming that the mis-description of the name of the assessee in the search warrant can be condoned as a procedural irregularity not affecting the validity of the search proceeding by invoking section 292B of the Act, we have grave doubts as to whether, despite the non-mention or incorrect mention of the premises to be searched in the search warrant, the search warrants can be considered to be properly issued, therefore the fact that in some of the search warrants the premises to be searched have not been either mentioned at all or have been vaguely mentioned makes the warrant illegal. Held further, where the warrants have been issued by the Additional Director of Income-tax (Investigation) who has no power to do so under section 132(1) of the Act as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dr. Nalini Mahajan, the block assessments pursuant thereto are liable to be quashed. Also Held, the period of limitation to frame block assessments starts from the date on which the search warrant are executed. The execution of the search warrant has been explained in Explanation 2(a) as the date on which the search was concluded as recorded in the last panchnama, the assessee is right in contending that the period of one year for completion of the block assessment shall be reckoned from the date on which the warrant of search was executed by showing the same to the concerned bank and stopping operations in the account. :DELHI ITAT; M/s Patel & Co Vs CIT-III, Baroda ( Dated : November 8, 2007 ) Income Tax - Jurisdiction u/s 263(1) invoked as AO failed to carry out proper inquiry - Assessee contends it cannot be invoked as long as the assessee was made in accordance with the law - In view of facts and arguments made by both parties, it is a fit case for invocation of powers u/s 263 - Assessee's appeal dismissed :AHMEDABAD ITAT; The ITO, Mumbai Vs M/s Essar World & Trade Ltd ( Dated : May 29, 2008 ) Income Tax - Assessee imports an aircraft for business purposes - claims depreciation for full year - AO restricts it to 50% on the ground that the aircraft was put to business use for less than 180 days - Since the aircraft is a movable asset, its delivery can be taken any time and anywhere - Case remanded and the assessee directed to submit the log-book of the flights for examination : MUMBAI ITAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
NOTIFICATION exnt08_31.pdf + etariff08_43.pdf Compounded levy on paan masala: CBEC amends Explanation 2 related to multiple line packing machine; CASE LAWS M/s EID Parry (I) Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated : May 15, 2008) Central Excise Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit - CENVAT credit on components used in captive power plant prima facie case in favour of the appellants pre-deposit waived. : CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s Pricol Ltd Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated : May 13, 2008) Central Excise Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit CENVAT credit of service tax paid on outward transportation as the matter is pending before the Larger Bench, pre-deposit waived. : CHENNAI CESTAT; CCE, Pune-I Vs M/s Endurance Technologies Pvt Ltd (Dated : March 17, 2008) Central Excise differential duty paid on price revision the differential duty was paid immediately on revision of price and no interest in payable under Section 11 AB there is no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order revenue appeal has no merit. : MUMBAI CESTAT; M/s HCL Infosystems Ltd Vs CCE, Pondicherry (Dated : April 23, 2008) Central Excise Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit - Cenvat credit transitional credit availed on the strength of Xerox copies of the invoices pre-deposit of Rs 25 lakhs ordered as no financial hardship was pleaded. : CHENNAI CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION Accounting codes for new Services notified on May 16, 2008; CCE, Vadodara Vs M/s Arvind Narayan Prasad Nopany (Dated : May 27, 2008) Service Tax Business Auxiliary Service Vs Management Consultancy Service - market development, marketing, sales are not being related to advice consultancy or technical assistance cannot be treated as Management Consultancy Services, but have to be read as Business Auxiliary Services only no merit in revenue's appeal. : AHMEDABAD CESTAT; M/s Shri Balaji Network Vs CCE, Indore & Vice Versa (Dated : March 3, 2008) ST - Cable Operator service - Assessee pleads that the Revenue wrongly added certain sum to the assessable value as it was not MSO in the year 2004 and was also wrongly denied benefits of exemption under Notification 6/2005 - Since the records show that the assessee started providing MSO service from December 2004, the addition was rightly made, and it was not entiled to exemption as its total turnover exceeded Rs 4 lakh - Since tax was not paid by due date, penalty upheld : DELHI CESTAT; Visranthi Builders Vs CST, Trichy (Dated : May 16, 2008) Service tax Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit service tax by construction contractors - demand of service tax along with penalties under Section 76,77 and 78 of the Finance Act the appellant paid the amount before issues of the Show Cause Notice pre-deposit of Rs 11,000/- ordered. : CHENNAI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION CBEC notifies committees of CCs for review cases in Bangalore & Cochin; DGFT PN 52 dated 27.9.2007 not to have retrospective application; Documents/verification required to establish eligibility and entitlement of units for import of rough marble blocks/slabs under Policy Circular No.13 (RE-08)/ 2004-2009 dated 30.6.2008; CASE LAWS CC, Chennai Vs Gmmco Ltd (Dated : May 8, 2008) Customs - extra duty deposited ordered to be refunded by the Tribunal earlier application for implementation of the Tribunal order in absence of any stay against the order of the Tribunal, revenue is directed to refund the amount with interest within 30 days. :CENNAI CESTAT; |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
