Customs – Not enough appraisers – Draft Superintendents (temporarily) – Board tells Field (See 'DDT')

Cabinet gives nod for merger of National Land Records Modernisation Schemes + CCEA for compulsory packing of food grains and sugar in Jute bags in year 2008-09 (See 'Common Basket);

Cabinet gives approval for establishment of National Agri-Food Biotechnology Institute and Bio-processing Unit at Mohali for Rs 380 Cr + exempts J&K, HP and N-E States from payment of deployment charges ;

Govt approves tariff and downlinking policy for Internet Protocol TV;

Former ONGC chief Subir Raha resigns from Ashok Leyland Board of Directors;

4% Interest subsidy to exporters: Rupee depreciating; MoF says no to extension;

Sr Advocates R K Anand and I U Khan convicted in BMW expose case; Delhi HC orders stripping of 'Sr Advocate' designation and directs them not to appear for 4 months;

Govt to notify Pay Panel recommended salary hike on Aug 28;

ddt 21 Aug.pdf + appraiser.pdf

Delhi Customs Valuation Study – Dubious?

cobweb.pdf

Pre-polls spasms: Is North Block heading for a change?

2008-TIOL-153-SC-CT.pdf + sc ct story.pdf

State of Haryana Vs M/s A S Fuels Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 20, 2008)

Exemption from Sales Tax – not eligible if conditions are not fulfilled – when the eligibility certificate is withdrawn, the exemption/entitlement certificate is also deemed to have been withdrawn from the first day:SUPREME COURT ;

mbuzz894.pdf

CCEA gives nod for compulsory packing of foodgrains and sugar in jute bags this fiscal ;

mbuzz893.pdf

Cabinet gives approval for merger of land records schemes;

mbuzz892.pdf

Establishment of National Agri-Food Biotechnology Institute gets nod for Rs 380 Cr;

mbuzz891.pdf

Hindustan Latex signs MoU with IL&FS for MediPark;

mbuzz890.pdf

Nagarjuna Construction bags orders worth Rs 474 Cr;

mbuzz889.pdf

Aurobindo gets FDA nod for Losartan Potassium tablets;

2008-TIOL-382-ITAT-DEL.pdf + LG story.pdf

LG Cable Ltd Vs DDIT, New Delhi ( Dated : August 8, 2008 )

Income Tax Act – Section 9(1)(1) – Assessee was awarded two contracts by PGCIL one for onshore execution and other for offshore supply and offshore services - services under the onshore part was rendered by assessee through its project office in India for which separate books of account were maintained by the appellant, as project office constituted a PE income attributable to the activities carried out in India in terms of Article 7 of the DTAA arising from the onshore contract was offered to tax in the return of income in India and the same was accepted by AO- however as per the A.O. contract for offshore supply was taxable in India and 10% of same was deemed to be paid and chargeable to tax in India – Revenue contended before ITAT that in respect of offshore equipments supply contract, the responsibility of the assessee does not stop at the point of delivering the equipment outside India, but is much more as the responsibility continues till the successful completion of the project because unless the equipment supplied under the offshore agreement is erected and commissioned successfully both the contracts were liable to be cancelled it was accordingly contended that neither the property in goods were transferred in Korea, nor the total price was paid outside India.

Held, that the provisions of DTAA would be attracted only if provisions of domestic law applicable and thus if the provisions of domestic law are not applicable to the off-shore supply of equipment, then the question of application of DTAA would not arise – Held further, that offshore supply of equipment related to supply of specified goods dispatched from Korea through a shipping company named in the bill of lading and PGCIL had opened letter of credit and had nominated a bank to issue irrevocable bill favouring the appellant. Equipment was delivered to ship and bill of lading and other documents were handed over to the nominated bank and accordingly with the delivery of bill of lading etc to the bank, the property in goods got transferred to PGCTL and thus sale of offshore equipment was complete. Profit, if any, on such supply of equipment arose to the assessee outside India and, therefore, same cannot be taxed in India u/s 9(1 )(i) of the I.T.Act. – Also held, that under the Sales of Goods Act the property in goods will pass to the buyer as per the intention of the parties and that such intention stood clearly narrated in the agreement in clause 31.2 were there is specific agreement between the parties that property would pass to the buyer as and when the assessee loads the equipment onto the mode of transport to be used to convey from the country of origin. There is no other term, which would convey a contrary intention.

Held further, that mere signing of agreement of supply did not give rise to any income – The normal trade warrantees could not be mixed up and taken as right of repudiation or right of disposal of equipment with the buyer or with the seller - The delivery of goods, document and receipt of substantial part of sale consideration did take place outside India where the sale took place and income accrued, such income could only be taxed outside India and not under Indian Law.

Also held, that when payment made to the assessee, a non-resident company, was subjected to tax deducted at source, then assessee was not liable to pay any advance- tax and question of levy of interest u/s 234B would not arise.:DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-381-ITAT-DEL.pdf

Shri Rajendra Kumar Agarwal Vs ACIT, New Delhi ( Dated : February 22, 2008 )

For initiation of proceedings u/s 158BD, satisfaction note to be recorded by the officer assessing the searched person and not by the officer issuing notice u/s 158BD

For initiation of proceedings under s. 158BD, satisfaction note to be recorded by the Assessing Officer assessing the searched person and not by the AO assessing the other person against whom proceedings under s. 158BD initiated. Letter dated 15.07.2003 written by AO assessing the searched person cannot be construed to represent the requisite satisfaction as the order under s. 158BC in the case of searched person was passed much before ie. on 29.08.2002 and thereafter the AO was functus officio and could not have recorded any satisfaction. Again, notice under s. 158BD was issued on 22.03.2004 ie. not within reasonable time from the date of completion of the block assessment in the case of the searched person. Considering the above, notice issued under s. 158BD and Block assessment made pursuant thereto are cancelled.:DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-380-ITAT-MUM.pdf

ITO, Mumbai Vs Mr Cletus Tony D'Souza ( Dated : May 26, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee, a foreign national, working with a ship management company stays in India for 190 days - AO treats him as 'Resident' but 'Not Ordinarily Resident' and taxes his entire salary - CIT(A) allows appeal - Held, the very High Court decision in Pradeep Mehta case which the Revenue has relied upon has been reversed by the SC wherein it was decided that an individual is 'Not ordinarily resident' unless he satisfies both the conditions - (i) he must have been a resident in nine out of ten preceding years; and (ii) he must have been in India for more than two years in the preceding seven years. - Revenue's appeal dismissed:MUMBAI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-379-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Apollo Trading & Finance Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi ( Dated : May 23, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee ventures into telecom project - incurs initial expenditures but abandons the project - claims the same as short-term capital loss - AO and CIT(A) diallow - Deduction cannot be denied as it was one of the objectives of the assessee-company to finance projects of HCL Gorup - It is business expenditure and cannot be disallowed:DELHI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1351-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + factory story.pdf

Om Enterprises Vs CCE, Pune II (Dated:June 26, 2008)

Factory closed down ten years ago but refund application made now – no question of refunding the amounts lying in the PLA and modvat account - Larger Bench decision in Gauri Plasticulture (P) Ltd. [ 2006-TIOL-1121-CESTAT-MUM-LB ] followed.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1350-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Coimbatore Vs Anand Zenner Co (P) Ltd (Dated: April 25, 2008)

Central Excise – SSI exemption – denial of exemption on the ground that the respondents are using brandname of another person who is not eligible for exemption - so-called brandname “ANAND ZENNER”, which can only be considered as the respondents' housemark and there is no connection between the respondents' product and the German company – revenue appeal has no merit.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1349-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Trichy Vs M/s Tamilnadu Newsprintand Papers Ltd, Karur (Dated: March 5, 2008)

Fuel used in manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods – Rule 6 of CCR does not apply to fuel – Credit eligible on furnace oil

The appellants' main contention is that in sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, it was mentioned that except inputs intended to be used as fuel, it will apply to those inputs which are used other than fuel. Since they are using the inputs as fuel, the Rule 6 will not be applicable and they are eligible for the credit. I find force in their argument (Para 3):CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1348-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd Vs CC & CE, Indore (Dated: July 9, 2008)

Central Excise - remission of duty on P or P medicaments expired - matter remanded to the Commissioner to pass order in appealable form in terms of the law declared in Larger Bench decision in Grasim Industries.:DELHI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1347-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

LFC Hire Purchase Company Ltd Vs CC & CE (Appeals), Cochin (Dated: April 16, 2008)

ST - Hire purchase case - Tax rate hiked from 14.4.2003 - Revenue for higher rate even for contracts entered into earlier - Issue is now settled by the Tribunal's decision in M/s Art Leasing Ltd ( 2007-TIOL-1493-CESTAT-BANG ) that the new rate of tax will not apply to contracts entered into before the hike in the rate even for services to be provided after the notification of the new rate - Assessee's appeal allowed:BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1346-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Good Year South Asia Tyres Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Aurangabad (Dated: June 3, 2008)

ST - Consulting Engineering service - Since the service provided by the USA was received in Japan, prima facie there is no case for levying service tax in India - Waiver from pre-deposit granted:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1345-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Hira Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Raipur (Dated: July 7, 2008)

ST - Business Auxiliary Service - Assessee enters into contract for curshing of iron ore and loading & unloading at railway rakes and transporting the same to their business premises - Revenue demands tax on the gross amount charged - Assessee pleads loading & unloading and transporation are handled by sub-contractors who pay service tax directly - Since it is a composite contract, it is not a fit case for waiver of pre-deposit - Rs 10 lakh pre-deposit ordered:DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-1353-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + boe story.pdf

M/s Super Autoforge Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: February 8, 2008)

Non usage of words ‘used', or the word ‘second-hand' in the Bill of Entry does not entail mis-declaration by importer - Evidence on record in the form of Chartered Engineer's certificate not taken note of by lower authorities - Foreign Trade policy, 2004-09. Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy clearly exempted second-hand capital goods from import restriction – Confiscation and penalty ordered not sustainable – Appeal allowed

The evidence on record indicated that the subject goods were parts of the main machine which was subsequently imported by the party and allowed to be cleared as second-hand capital goods, unaffected by anything contained in the Foreign Trade Policy. Further, the unassailed examination report of the Chartered Engineers also certified the goods to be used/second-hand. In the circumstances, there is no reason why the goods should have been held to be restricted for import (Para 3):CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1352-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Shri Vijay Ramchandra Tayade Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: June 24, 2008)

Recovery of foreign currency from the back rests of seats in Air India flight to Dubai – Aircraft under the control of security guards and no record or evidence to show that the appellant entered the aircraft – Foreign currency included traveller's cheques but no efforts made by authorities to trace the real culprit in spite of insistence by the appellant – Appellant already discharged from criminal proceedings and proceedings under FERA – Except for one statement by another accused all evidences point to the contrary - Order imposing penalty set aside and appeal allowed

I further notice that the foreign currency is said to have been kept in the back rest of seats 35E and 35F of Shri Suresh Ghadge and Smt Sunita Ghadge. If that is so then for retrieving such packets, the passengers have to come to the seats behind them, which they would not have done as such act would be viewed by co-passenger sitting on the back seats. In such a case the packets should have been kept in the back rest of the front seats and not on the back rest of their own seats (Para 6):MUMBAI CESTAT;