Import of rough marble blocks/slabs – DGFT clarifies (See 'DDT')

Cabinet gives nod for setting up 8 more IITs + upgradation of IT-BHU; also brings Amonium Sulphate under Fertiliser Concession Scheme + gives nod for Rs 1280 Cr for launch of six GSLV flights ;

Govt exploring exports ban on some of steel products;

Chennai Airport Customs seizes Ketamine worth Rs 30 lakh;

Pak pharma lobby blocking import of drugs from India;

GSPC discovers new oil wells in Krishna basin;

ddt 17 july.pdf

Paan masala - capacity determination;

cobweb.pdf

Anti-Smuggling Conclave: Customs honchos discuss everything except human trafficking!

2008-TIOL-135-SC-MISC.pdf + money story.pdf

Money circulation scheme – Cheating charges – no interference against framing of charges :SUPREME COURT;

mbuzz802.pdf

Govt gives nod for 8 more IITs and conversion of IT-BHU into IIT;

mbuzz801.pdf

Cabinet okays Rs 1280 Cr budget for launch of six GSLV flights;

mbuzz800.pdf

Indigenous Amonium Sulphate brought under Fertiliser Concession Scheme;

mbuzz799.pdf

Lucknow Airport named as 'Chaudhary Charan Singh Airport' ;

2008-TIOL-349-HC-AHM-IT.pdf + Voltamp story.pdf

Voltamp Transfomers Ltd Vs CIT ( Dated : April 30, 2008 )

Income Tax - It is option of the assessee to adopt a particular method of valuation of closing stock, cost or market price, whichever is lower, as per settled principles of commercial accounting :AHMEDABAD HIGH COURT ;

2008-TIOL-322-ITAT-MUM.pdf

ITO, Mumbai-20 Vs M/s Ranisati Fabric Mills Pvt Ltd ( Dated : August 7, 2007 )

Income Tax - contribution to ESI after grace period - assessee contends that the second proviso to the section 43B has been omitted by the Finance Act, 2003 with retrospective effect and hence deposit allowable - CIT (A) deletes the addition - Held, the solitary judgment of any High Court on a particular point or issue, should be followed in its letter and spirit by all Benches of the Tribunal notwithstanding contrary views are expressed by some Benches of the Tribunal, unless there are strong reasons to deviate from the view expressed by the High Court, Otherwise, the hierarchical judicial system would collapse - assessee not entitled for deduction under section 43B  for payment of ESI, as it was not paid even within the grace period - Revenue Appeal partly allowed : MUMBAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-321-ITAT-DEL.pdf

BHPE Kinhill Joint Venture Vs ADIT, New Delhi ( Dated : March 14, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee is a non-resident JV - provides management services to Paradip Port Trust - AO disallows certain expenses like expenses incurred by the Head Office exclusively for the Indian Operations etc - Interest demanded u/s 234B - CIT(A) disagrees - Since the pre-condition for levy of interest under section 234B is liability to pay advance tax and since there was no liability to pay advance tax in the present case as the entire income was subject to deduction of tax at source, the assessee cannot be held liable to pay interest under section 234B of the Act - Revenue's appeal rejected : DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-320-ITAT-HYD.pdf

CIT, Visakhapatnam Vs Late A.V.N. Jaggarao ( Dated : May 16, 2008 )

Interest – chargeable on re-assessment even if not charged in the original assessment: interest u/s 139(8), 215 and 217 can be charged if the assessment is reopened u/s 147, wherever assessments are earlier made under any other provisions of the Act : HYDERABAD ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

NOTIFICATION

etariff08_44.pdf

38/2007-CX rescinded;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1124-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Cummins Generator Technologies India Ltd Vs CCE, Aurangabad (Dated : January 14, 2008)

Central Excise – Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit - Cenvat Credit – credit on catering services – following earlier order of the Tribunal, pre-deposit ordered. :MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1123-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Lloyds Metals & Engineering Ltd Ltd Vs CCE & CC, Nagpur (Dated : January 30, 2008)

Central Excise – Cenvat Credit on welding electrodes used for maintenance of plant and machinery – credit is admissible. :MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1122-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Shri Ram Marble Industries Vs CCE, Bhopal (Dated : Feburary 7, 2008)

Central Excise – classification - the impugned goods are “marble” but not Dolomite as contended by the appellants - it has been categorically mentioned in the chemical examiner's report that the sample is of marble conforming to characteristics of marble in terms texture, structure and porosity – no infirmity in the impugned order – penalty reduced. : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1121-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Sterling Biotech Limited Vs CCE, Salem (Dated : March 12, 2008)

Appellants have failed to establish the inapplicability of Rule 6(3) (b) to the facts of the case, where assessee produced both dutiable and non-dutiable goods – Rule 6(3) (b) of Credit Rules prima facie applicable – Pre-deposit ordered by CESTAT. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

final_accounting_code.pdf

Accounting codes for new Services notified on May 16, 2008 (Sending this file again with little better formatting);

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1128-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + haj story.pdf

M/s Akbar Travels Of India (P) Ltd Vs CCE & CC, Cochin (Dated : March 14, 2008)

Service Tax – No exemption from service tax for Haj pilgrims – Service tax paid before issue of SCN and O-I-O – No penalty as the case is fit to be considered under Sec. 80 – Interest payable - Tribunal

The appellants had paid the major portion of the service tax before the issue of show cause notice and the balance amount even before the Orders-in-Original was issued. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we would deem it proper to take a lenient view in the matter and feel that the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act could have been used in this case. In any case, the appellants are liable to pay their interest. (Para7) : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1127-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Sky Lift Cargo (P) Ltd Vs CST, Chennai (Dated : May 5, 2008)

Service Tax – Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit - Business Auxiliary service – the appellant cannot resist the demand of service tax for the normal period, though the demand was made for the larger period – pre-deposit ordered. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

ctariff08_088.pdf

39/2007-Cus rescinded;

ctariff08_087.pdf

Anti-dumping duty on vitrified and porcelain tiles: Govt exempts a few exporters from China;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-136-SC-NDPS.pdf + ndps story.pdf

Union Of India Vs Satrohan ( Dated : July 14, 2008 )

Search, seizure and arrest under NDPS – Authorised officer can himself make the search or authorise his subordinate to do so: Section 41(1) which empowers a Magistrate to issue warrant for arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under the NDPS Act or for search, has not much relevance for the purpose of considering the contention. Under Section 41(2) only a Gazetted Officer can be empowered by the C entral Government or the State Government. Such empowered officer can either himself make an arrest or conduct a search or authorize an officer subordinate to him to do so but that subordinate officer has to be superior in rank to a peon, a sepoy or a constable. Sub-section (3) of Section 41 vests all the powers of an officer acting under Section 42 on three types of officers ( i ) to whom a warrant under sub-section (1) is addressed, (ii) the officer who authorized the arrest or search under sub-section (2) of Section 41, and (iii) the officer who is so authorized under sub-section (2) of Section 41. Therefore, an empowered Gazetted Officer has also all the powers of Section 42 including the power of seizure. Section 42 provides for procedure and power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization.” :SUPREME COURT;

2008-TIOL-1126-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Reliance Engineers Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated : May 14, 2008)

Customs – classification – the impugned item “modular plug for telephone” is correctly classifiable under 8517.90 – Commissioner (Appeals) order classifying the same under 8536.90 is set aside. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1125-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CC, Chennai Vs M/s India Gypsum Ltd (Dated : May 15, 2008)

Customs – refund – unjust enrichment – it is settled that unjust enrichment is applicable to capital goods also – matter remanded to examine whether excess duty paid had been passed on to the customers of the respondent. : CHENNAI CESTAT;