CBDT issues transfer orders of Addl/JCITs + AC/DCITs and promotes 47 DCITs as JCITs (See 'Direct Tax Basket')

BSP, Left to now launch nationwide drive against UPA

CBEC Member posts: Three names - M Dwivedi, A C Buck & P N Vittal Dass - recommended for ACC approval;

TRAI issues notice to ESPN on DTH pricing;

ACC appoints Pramod Kumar Rastogi of 1974 batch as Steel Secretary + Atul Chaturvedi of same batch as new Fertiliser Secy;

Singh is King - Manmohan wins trust vote; House adjourned sine die;

ddt 23 july.pdf

From Kerosene lamp to nuclear energy – unheard melody from the PM;

spl down.pdf

Service Tax on transfer of software licences: TDS fall-outs!

The Insider

CITs' transfer: FM, CBDT display rare insensitivity to cancer patient!

cabinet.pdf

Proposals for Cabinet consideration - Instructions;

efilingvat.pdf

Maharashtra VAT – E- filing of annexure

vat.pdf

UP Govt issues VAT (Amendment) Ordinance;

2008-TIOL-139-SC-MISC.pdf + zarda story.pdf

Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar Vs State of U.P And Others ( Dated : May 14, 2008 )

Zafrani Zarda being a `manufactured tobacco' would not answer the description of processed tobacco .- It is used by a class of consumers. It is used for a specific purpose. Tobacco as a processed form is used for many purposes, by many persons and in many ways. Tobacco in raw form or in any other processed form is not commercially known as Zarda . The common parlance test may have to be applied for the purpose of finding out as to whether the product in question is manufactured goods or not.: SUPREME COURT;

ORDER

cbdtorder101_2008.pdf

CBDT promotes 47 DCITs as JCITs and issues posting order;

cbdtorder102_2008.pdf

CBDT transfers 27 Addl/JCITs at all India level;

cbdtorder103_2008.pdf

CBDT transfers 28 ACIT/DCITs at all India level;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-360-HC-MAD-IT.pdf + interest story.pdf

M/s India Comnet International (P) Limited Vs ITO, Chennai ( Dated: July 9, 2008 )

Income Tax - Interest on exports proceeds deposited in bank Income Tax - Interest on exports proceeds deposited in bank – no exemption: the assessee received the export proceeds and the same was deposited in the bank and the income was derived from the said deposit and hence here also there is no direct nexus between the interest and the Industrial Undertaking. Hence, this Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Menon Impex P. Ltd., cited supra, is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case : MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-359-HC-P-H-IT.pdf

CIT, Karnal Vs Sh Rakesh Kumar ( Dated : July 1, 2008 )

Income Tax - Search u/s 132 - Searched person expires and notice u/s 158BC(c)/144 served on legal heir, the assessee - CIT(A) quashes the notice - Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeal on the ground that no proceedings can be launched against a dead person - No infirmity in the Tribunal's decision - Revenue's appeal dismissed : P & H HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-358-HC-KERALA-IT.pdf

CIT, Trichur Vs M/s Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd ( Dated : February 4, 2008 )

Income Tax - Whether advance Sales Tax paid is allowable deduction –Held assessee not entitle to claim deduction u/s 29 read with Section 37(1) and Section 145 - Section 43B is only supplementary to section 145.

whether the A/O was justified in disallowing the claim and computing tax liability u/s 143(1)(a) - Held clause (iii) of first proviso to Section 143(1)(a)(ii) authorises the AO to compute tax or interest payable by or in favour of the assessee among other things after making adjustments in the income or loss declared in the return which includes addition of any deduction claimed which is "prima facie inadmissible" - AO justified in disallowing the claim in the proceedings completed under Section 143(1)(a)

Revenue Appeal allowed. : KERALA HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-357-HC-P-H-IT.pdf

CIT, Haryana Vs Kailash Ricemills, Pehowa ( Dated : July 3, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee is in the business of manufacturing rice - shows credit of a small amount from one person - AO wants to verify the authenticity of that payment - Since the person had died, his son filed an affidavit - AO called for his son with land records etc - Assessee surrenders the sum - AO makes addition of the same as unexplained income - Tribunal allows assessee's appeal as the sum did not pertain to the previous year as it was entered into the books before starting the business - Revenue's appeal dismissed as the tax effect was found to be miniscule: P & H HIGH COURT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1165-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + aluminium story.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Aluplex India Ltd, Mumbai (Dated : April 3, 2008)

Aluminum structural glazing system emerges as a distinct product from Aluminum frames, glass sheets etc – Assembly of glazing system at site amounts to manufacture – The emergent product is also marketable, hence leviable to duty – Assessee's own case distinguished - Appeal of Revenue allowed – Commissoner Appeals to examine the issue of time-bar – Assessee's plea of time bar remanded – Tribunal : CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1164-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs Eswaran & Sons Engineers Ltd (Dated : June 16, 2008)

Reconditioned goods cleared without payment of duty – eligible for refund under erstwhile Rule 173 L: what the respondents claimed was refund of the duty paid by themselves on the goods originally. The goods was returned by the customer for reconditioning under Rule 173L. The reconditioned goods was cleared without payment of duty, for export. In similar circumstances, it was held by the Tribunal in Metazinc case that refund of duty was admissible under Rule 173L(1). The decision in the said case has been followed by this Tribunal in the cases of Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills (supra), Relaxo International (Supra) and LML Ltd. (supra). The Revenue has not claimed that any of these decisions of the Tribunal was not accepted by them. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1163-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE & CC, Pune-III Vs M/s Spectra Specialities (Dated : May 23, 2008)

Central Excise –Cenvat Credit – credit on capital goods destroyed in fire – the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly held that the credit is not required to be reversed as also held by the Larger Bench in case of M/s Grasim Industries – revenue appeal has no merit. :MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1162-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Tiruttani Cooperative Sugar Mills Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated : April 24, 2008)

Central Excise – Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit - remission of duty on Molasses stored in kutcha pits without permission from the department – since the appellants have not filed appeal against the order rejecting the remission, it attained finality – Pre-deposit of Rs 10 lakhs ordered. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1161-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + ruby story.pdf

Rubicon Formulations Pvt Ltd Vs CC & ST, Aurangabad (Dated : June 10, 2008)

Production of goods containing alcohol and discharging State Excise duty – Prima facie attracts Service Tax under the head “Business Auxiliary Services” – Tribunal orders pre-deposit of a quarter Crore : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1160-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Easun Mr Tap Changers (P) Ltd Vs CST, Chennai (Dated : May 16, 2008)

Service Tax – Stay/dispensation of pre-deposit – Consulting Engineer service – transfer of technical know how is not exigible to service tax under consulting engineer – prima facie case made out for waiver of pre-deposit. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1159-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Aurangabad VsM/s Ajanta Sales Corporation (Dated : May 16, 2008)

ST - C & F Service - Liability to pay tax was changed from service recipient to service provider in Dec, 2000 - Assessee pleads ignorance about the change in law - Commissioner reduces penalty - Since the service tax law was at nascent stage during the relevant period, Commissioner's decision to use discretion under Sec 81 is justifiable : MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft08not026.pdf

DGFT lays down norms for export of cotton and other cotton items;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1158-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Mumbai Vs Internorman India Fab Filters Pvt Ltd (Dated : May 12, 2008)

Customs – valuation – inclusion of royalty payment in the value of goods imported - as long as the payment of royalty is not a condition of sale of the goods being valued, the provisions of Rule 9 (1) (c) will not apply – no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) :MUMBAI CESTAT;