Chennai Airport Customs seizes 231 live ornamental fishes;

G-20 puts pressure on rich nations to reduce farm subsidies;

WTO talks: FICCI calls for better deal for professionals from developed nations;

PM rebuts charges of opposing 1998 N-tests;

US, EU put pressure on China to amend auto parts taxation rules;

Pre-Trust vote meet: NDA political managers claim win-win situation even if they lose;

WTO crucial talks: India expresses keenness to go beyond proposed tariff for agri and industrial products;

Govt appoints Milkha Singh as Chairman of Panel to choose winners for Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Award + Arjuna Awards + Dronacharya Award;

IGL to set up 50 new CNG stations in Delhi;

RBI may hike FIIs' limit for corporate bonds to get funds for infrastructure;

ddt 21 july.pdf

Income Tax - Mandatory e-payment – not necessarily from your own account – CBDT clarifies;

tiol spl guest.pdf

Judicial Independence of dependent judiciary!

guest column.pdf

It is too unjust!

fake currency.pdf

Fight against Fake Indian Currency Notes: RBI issues detailed guidelines for banks;

mbuzz813.pdf

Dena Bank signs MoU to support medium & small enterprises;

mbuzz812.pdf

SAIL takes steps to contain retail prices of steel products;

mbuzz811.pdf

Petro Minister asks IGL & GAIL to improve CNG supply in Delhi;

2008-TIOL-353-HC-MUM-IT.pdf

The CIT Vs M/s Ashapura Garments Pvt Ltd (Dated: June 26, 2008 )

Income Tax - Penalty u/s 272A(2)(g) - Since the assessee deducts the tax and deposits the same with the treasury and the TDS certificates being sent by speed post very next day, the assessee has complied with the mandatory provisions of the Section, and once there has been compliance of Sec 203 read with rules, no penalty can be imposed - Revenue appeal dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-352-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

The CIT-XVII Vs Dhir Global Industries Pvt Ltd (Dated: July 4, 2008 )

Income Tax - Penalty u/s 272A(2)(g) - Revenue argues the penalty proceedings under this Section is independent of proceedings u/s 221 - No penalty once the explanation for delay is accepted - Issuance of TDS certificate is not independent of making the TDS deposit as the challan details are to be mentioned in the TDS certificates - No error in Tribuanl's decision - Revenue's appeal dismissed : DELHI HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-329-ITAT-AGRA-TM.pdf + jewellery story.pdf

K P Agarwal, Agra Vs ACIT, Agra ( Dated : January 16, 2008 )

Income Tax – Jewellery seized during search; onus on the assessee to prove that he is not the owner – The Assessing Officer has rightly assessed the investment in jewellery as unexplained income of the assessee. Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872, embodies a salutary principle of common law jurisprudence that where a person was found in possession anything, the onus of proving that he was not its owner was on that person and this principle could be attracted to a set of circumstances that satisfy its conditions and was applicable to taxation proceedings.: AGRA ITAT (THIRD MEMBER);

2008-TIOL-328-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Muscari Wineries & Distilleries Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai ( Dated : January 30, 2008 )

Income Tax - AO disallows legal expenses incured to protect the interests from litigations on the ground that the dividend income is exempt u/s 10(33) and the assessee is not in the business of share trading - Since the assessee holds the shares as capital assets and is not involved in any business activity, such expenses cannot be allowed - Assessee's appeal disallowed:MUMBAI ITAT ;

2008-TIOL-327-ITAT-DEL.pdf

DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Malibu Estate (Joint Venture) ( Dated : March 14, 2008 )

Income Tax - Interest on FDRs - AO assesses the same as income from other sources - CIT(A) holds such income as business income and allows set off for interest paid, if any - Based on decision given in the assessee's own case Tribunal upholds CIT(A) order - Revenue's appeal dismissed :DELHI ITAT ;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1146-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s India Meters Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated : January 3, 2008)

Excise Duty is on manufacture – Expenses incurred on account of transportation and insurance beyond factory/gate not includible in the assessable value – Apex court decision of Baroda Electric Meters followed – Appeal allowed : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1145-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Steel Authority Of India Limited Vs CCE, Raipur (Dated : June 5, 2008)

Central Excise – Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit – demand of 10% amount on the exempted goods under Rule 6 of the CENVAT credit rules – the appellants reversed the credit attributable to the inputs used in the exempted goods – prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit. : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1144-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CCE, Surat II Vs M/s Parasrampuria Inds Ltd (Dated : April 24, 2008)

Central Excise – Cenvat Credit on packing material in respect of goods for which tariff value has been fixed – asking assessee to establish that the cost of packing material and other inputs have been included in the tariff value of the final product is an impossible requirement to be fulfilled when the Government of India does not declare the break up of different cost while fixing the tariff value. : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1143-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Bangalore Vs Mercury Managements & Technical Services (P) Ltd (Dated : Marcch 18, 2008)

Central Excise – refund - refund claim arose out of finalization of provisional assessment for the period prior to 25.6.1999 and the same is not affected by anything contained in Section 11B as the amendment to Rule 9B has only prospective effect from 25.6.1999. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1142-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + kay iron story.pdf

CCE, Pune II Vs M/s Kay Iron Works Pvt Ltd (Dated : May 28, 2008)

Department's belief unfounded - Singular Revenue needs to file separate appeals in respect of co-noticees – Six year delay not condoned :MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1141-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Axles India Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated : May 2, 2008)

Central Excise – Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit – penalty under Section 11 AC – reasons stated by the appellant against penalty are not appealing – pre-deposit of 50% of the penalty ordered. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1149-CESTAT-DEL-LB.pdf + st lb story.pdf

M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur (Dated : June 27, 2008)

Service Tax - recipient of the 'consulting engineer' service from outside India, not liable to pay service tax prior to 1.1.2005: taxable service provided by a non-resident or from outside India, who does not have any office in India, having been specified as 'taxable service' with effect from 1.1.2005, under notification No.36/2004, recipient of such service could not be held liable for paying service tax prior to 1.1.2005 notwithstanding the amendment in rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules under notification no. 12/2004.

Person liable to pay tax: the person liable to pay the tax is a component of the tax scheme. Since the liability to pay service tax generally is on the provider of service, where liability is to be fastened on any other person, the service (s) in relation to which liability is to be so fastened, has also to be identified and specified. It is relevant to mention that services had been specified in the erstwhile sub-section (1A) of Section 68, itself, - corresponding to present sub-section (2) in which it has now been left to the Central Government to do so by a notification.

Manner of collection of tax cannot be extended to include the person liable to pay the tax . The person liable to pay the tax is an integral component of any tax - as a concept, distinct from the mechanism for its collection and recovery. Reference to section 68 in section 94(2)(a) simply means that the Central Government is required to make rules for collection and recovery of service tax under section 68, read with section 66 which is the charging section. As seen above, section 68(2) envisages specifying the 'services' in relation to which a person other than the service provider is to be made liable to pay service tax; it also envisages specifying the 'person' - other than the service provider - to be made liable to pay service tax. While the former is to be done by way of notification, the latter can be done by making rules. It is well known that where the law provides the manner for doing something, it should be done in that manner or not at all. It is relevant to mention here that while notification no. 12/2002 was issued amending the Service Tax Rules in exercise of rule making power under section 94 of the Act, notification no.36/2004 was issued in exercise of powers under section 68(2). : DELHI CESTAT ( LARGER BENCH );

2008-TIOL-1148-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Kurele Industires Vs CCE, Kanpur (Dated : May 27, 2008)

ST - C&F Agent - Assessee arranges orders for the principal and also guarantees payment and interest in case of delayed payment - Demand and penalty - Commissioner (A) observes the service provided was that of 'commission agent' which was brought under tax net from 2004 - Meanwhile, Commissioner enhances penalty - Since the demand related to years 2001 to 2003 itself was found to be unsustainable, penalty not maintainable - Order set aside : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1140-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Daurala Sugar Works Vs CCE, Meerut (Dated : June 18, 2008)

ST - Business Auxiliary Service - production or processing of goods on behalf of the client - Assessee contends blending and bottling of IMFL amounts to manufacture - Revenue argues that such a kind of manufactured liquor is not covered under the tariff and therefore, does not amount to manufacture u/s 2(f) of Central Excise Act - In view of the Madras HC order in Vinbros case ( 2008-TIOL-49-HC-MAD-IT ) where it has been held as manufacture, the applicant has prima facie a strong case - Pre-deposit waived and stay granted : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-351-HC-MAD-CUS.pdf + predeposit story.pdf

CC (Exports), Chennai Vs Cabale Corporation of India Ltd (Dated: June 19, 2008)

Refund of pre-deposit: No limitation as it is not duty ; bank guarantee cannot be regarded as equivalent to payment of duty and it is only furnished to safeguard the interest of the revenue in case of non-fulfilment of export obligation. Section 27 which speaks about the refund of the duty cannot be pressed into service to deny refund of the amount covered under the bank guarantee which has been negotiated by the department. :CHENNAI HIGH COURT ;

2008-TIOL-1147-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Sri Krishna Spinning & Weaving Mills (P) Ltd Vs CC, Tuticorin (Dated : March 13, 2008)

Customs – Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit – misdeclaration – import of “Corduroy Fabric” as “Cotton Grey Fabric” – the appellants have prima-facie not made a case for waiver of pre-deposit - Rs 10 lakhs pre-deposit ordered. :CHENNAI CESTAT;