Audit's 'Imported' objection (See 'DDT')

Govt ratifies ILO Convention related to prevention of major industrial accidents;

Currency futures: RBI guidelines for banks to become trading member;

Govt allocates 3G and BWA Spectrums to BSNL & MTNL; next Generation mobile services rolled out;

CBDT looking for two DS/Director and five Under Secretaries;

SEBI, RBI decide to introduce currency futures in bourses;

SC stays Tribunal decision lifting ban on SIMI;

ddt 7aug.pdf

No Outsourcing/Sub-letting/Transfer of Operations by CFS/ICD – CBEC wants Commissioners to take action;

cobweb.pdf

'Even God cannot save our country' - Is it beginning of the end of era of Judicial Activism?

kar_cir07.pdf

Salient features of the modifications and changes under different tax enactments effective from 1.8.2008 – reg.

RBI Notifi for Infrasture financing.pdf

Infrastructure – Criteria for financing;

RBI Notifi For Introduction of Currency Futures.pdf

Introduction of Currency Futures – Permitting banks to become trading /clearing members of SEBI-approved exchanges;

mbuzz856.pdf

India ratifies ILO Convention related to prevention of Major Industrial Accidents;

mbuzz855.pdf

Govt lends more autonomy to Navratna Cos;

mbuzz854.pdf

Govt allocates 3G and BWA Spectrums to BSNL & MTNL; next Generation mobile services rolled out;

2008-TIOL-11-ARA-IT.pdf + ara story.pdf

Geoconsult ZT GMBH ( Dated : July 31, 2008 )

Income tax - A non-resident company forming a J.V. with two Indian companies to provide technical/consultancy services to an Indian client engaged in developing infrastructure has a P.E. in India and is taxable in India in terms of IT Act and Indo-Austrian DTAA - J.V. partners have ‘associated' themselves with a ‘common design' to provide consultancy services to the client - Common purpose and common action pursued towards the ultimate end of earning income/profits is evident in the agreements - J.V. partners are to be considered as "Association of Persons" in terms of s. 2 (31)(v) of I.T. Act and hence taxable in India:ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY;

2008-TIOL-358-ITAT-DEL.pdf

ITO, New Delhi Vs M/s Eshann Holding Pvt Ltd (Dated : February 15, 2008 )

Income Tax - AO serves notice at old address - additions made - CIT(A) declares assessment null and void as notice not properly served - Tribunal upholds CIT(A) order as no amount of participation in the reassessment proceedings can confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment if he had not served a notice under section 148 on the assessee. It is a fundamental principle of income-tax law as in other branches of law, that consent cannot confer jurisdiction on an authority where there is none - Revenue's appeal dismissed: DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-357-ITAT-HYD.pdf

DCIT, Hyderabad Vs M/s Avanthi Leathers Ltd ( Dated : May 9, 2008 )

For computation of business profit 90% of job charges to be excluded from the business income

Disallowance of deduction of commission paid to foreign agent - Assessing Officer has to come to a definite finding whether commission paid to foreign agent was in fact chargeable to tax in India or not – Determination of total income to be based on this finding - Board's Circular No.786 as well as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories apply – Disallowance deleted – Assessee's appeal upheld: HYDERABAD ITAT;

2008-TIOL-356-ITAT-DEL.pdf

ITO, New Delhi Vs Smt Asha Mundra ( Dated : June 27, 2008 )

Income tax - Transactions of sale of shares - Return filed in Kolkata claiming exemption for capital gains under Sec 54F of the Act and original assessment completed under s.143(3) - AO at Delhi has jurisdiction for re-assessment proceedings under s.148 based on post-search enquiry by DDIT, Investigation, Gurgaon which revealed fresh evidence - CIT(A) order quashing the reassessment proceedings on the ground of limitation under s.147 set aside - Matter remanded to CIT(A) to decide the case on merits by providing opportunities to both Revenue and Assessee: DELHI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1259-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

Laxmi Tex Chem Vs CCE, Surat - I ( Dated: July 2, 2008 )

Central Excise – duty demand on clandestine clearances - statements are supported by corroborative evidence to establish clandestine clearances – not considering the cross examination has not adversely affected the appellants – retraction of statements after the issue of show cause notice has no value.: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1258-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Shriram Foundry Ltd Vs CCE, Pune ( Dated: May 2, 2008 )

Central Excise – refund – issue of credit notes to the buyer is not sufficient to conclude that the duty burden has not been passes on to the customer: CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1257-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Tablets India Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai ( Dated: February 14, 2008 )

Common inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods – Adjustment of 8% not required if CENVAT credit was reversed before clearance of exempted goods – Conflict between Board's Circular and Tribunal decision - Latter shall prevail – Apex Court decision in Chandrapur Magnet Wires also followed - Order set aside and appealed allowed

This Tribunal, applying the ratio of the judgment in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires case (supra), held that the assessee cannot be said to have availed MODVAT credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of the exempted final products and accordingly the demand raised on them in terms of Rule 57 AD (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was set aside (Para 2)

This circular does not address the question as to the point of time at which common inputs must be segregated for separate accounting, nor does it examine the question as to whether the reversal of inadmissible CENVAT credit taken on common inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final product, before the clearance of such products, would constitute substantial compliance with the requirements of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Even otherwise, in a conflict between Board's circular and the Tribunal's decision, the latter shall prevail (Para 3): CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1256-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CCE, Ahmedabad Vs Vs M/s Cadila Veterinary Ltd ( Dated: May 27, 2008 )

Central Excise – refund – unjust enrichment – Commissioner (Appeals) finding that there is no unjust enrichment was based on the report of the Dy. Commissioner who inquired into the matter and submitted the report to Commissioner(Appeals) – no merit in revenue's appeal.

Refund granted by way of credit in CENVAT Credit account – plea of the assessee for cash refund since the factory was closed – matter remanded for verification.

SERVICE TAX SECTION

CIRCULAR

sercir104.pdf

Service Tax on GTA by road servcies: CBEC issues clarifications;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1263-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + ipr story.pdf

M/s Nypro Forbes Products Ltd Vs CST, Chennai ( Dated: February 7, 2008 )

Technical collaboration fee for transfer of technical know how – Classifiable under Intellectual property service – Not leviable to service tax under Consulting Engineer's service at the relevant time – Commissioner's revision order set aside – Appeal allowed

There is another aspect, which also operates against the Revenue, in this case. The Revenue admits that the technical collaboration fee was paid by the assessee to their foreign collaborator mainly as consideration for transfer of technical know-how for the purpose of setting up a plastic injunction moulding plant of India. If that be so, a major part of the fee paid by the assessee under the technical collaboration agreement was consideration for technical know-how only, which admittedly is an intellectual property service (Para 6) : CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1262-CESTAT-KOL.pdf

M/s Academy Of Fine Arts Vs CST, Kolkata ( Dated: June 26, 2008 )

ST - Mandap-keeping - Revenue levies penalty on assessee for renting out auditorium for holding dance, drama and other cultural functions - An institution of fine arts cannot be treated as mandap and holding official, social and business functions are necessary for taxing temporary occupation of mandap - Pre-deposit waiver granted :KOLKATA CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1261-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Spic Pharmaceuticals Division, Cuddalore Vs CCE, Pondicherry ( Dated: February 1, 2008 )

Transfer of technical know how not classifiable under consulting engineer's service – Issue already covered by earlier orders of the Tribunal – Order of the lower authority set aside - Appeal allowed

Learned counsel has cited the instance of M/s. Shore to Shore MIS Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [ 2006-TIOL-1517-CESTAT-MAD ] wherein a demand of service tax in the category of Consulting Engineer's Service for the period May, 2002 to July, 2004 in respect of transfer of technical know-how was set aside (Para 2): CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

Instruction.pdf

Outsourcing / Sub-letting / Transfer of Operations by CFS/ICD – Clarification - reg.

dgft08pn058.pdf

DGFT amends FTP to clarify that duty to be paid on clearance of capital goods, including second-hand, in DTA;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-387-HC-MUM-CUS.pdf + bom hc story.pdf

CC, Mumbai Vs M/s Noble Asset Co Ltd (Dated: August 4, 2008 )

Customs Commissioner (P). Mumbai has no jurisdiction over EEZ - Neither practice nor would consent confer jurisdiction – Considering Article 297 and Article 1 of the C onstitution, it will be clear that the territorial waters, Contiguous Zone, Continental Shelf and EEZ are not part of the territory of India but India exercises sovereign rights in respect of the territorial waters, on the continental shelf and also certain sovereign rights within the EEZ . The contention, therefore, urged on behalf of the Revenue that the Collector (Preventive) having been notified as the proper officer for the District of Raigad would have jurisdiction over the notified areas in the EEZ is rejected. Once the power has been exercised under Section 4, then it is only the proper officer who can only exercise the powers in respect of the areas in respect of which the jurisdiction has been conferred on them. Neither practice would confer jurisdiction nor would consent confer jurisdiction. The finding by the CESTAT therefore, cannot be faulted. The Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

District of Raigad does not include EEZ: Understood in the proper context, the area of the District of Greater Mumbai and Kolaba ( Raigad ) would be their land mass. The areas of districts of coastal States definitely cannot extend into the designated areas of EEZ . The rights over the territorial waters, the continental shelf and the contiguous zone from the EEZ are to be exercised by the Sovereign nation i.e. India and not by States consisting the Union of India.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-1260-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Technospin Pvt Ltd Vs CC (Imports-Sea), Chennai ( Dated: April 4, 2008 )

Appellant's version not properly countered – Allegation of misdeclaration not established – Penalty cannot be imposed just because statute provided for it – Penalty not automatic but to be imposed judiciously – Penalties reduced and Appeal partially allowed :CHENNAI CESTAT;