|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
CBI to examine sitting High Court Judges - CJI grants permission; The rot has set in and is openly acknowledged (See 'DDT') TDSAT directs Prasar Bharti to restore Zee Group Channels ; Core Sector growth nosedives to 4.3% in July; Pune Customs Commissioner Sunil K Sawhney goes to Enforcement Directorate as Special Director; CBEC promotes 137 Central Excise Superintendents + 23 Customs Superintendents (Preventive) as Assistant Commissioner (See 'Indirect Tax Basket'); States to demand larger share of revenue from Finance Commission; Steel Ministry seeks 5% hike in export duty on steel products: Paswan; |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Dear Member, Sending the following files: |
||
|
 |
 |
|
|
Heads or tails – who wins? In Law, which is more legal, the marginal heading of a section or the contents of the Section. What survives when the Heading is in conflict with the contents of the Section? Now that Service Tax on ITSS is a fait accompli ... Pay Panel makes no impact, resignation continues in IRS; Pawar to address national meet on Warehousing; RBI Governor for stepping up financial sector reforms ; Core sector growth nosedives to 4.3% in July; |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
| |
INSTRUCTIONS Processing of returns for A.Y. 2007-08 – Steps to clear the backlog - regarding.; Scrutiny of FBT returns – regarding; CASE LAWS 2008-TIOL-412-ITAT-MUM.pdf + cipla story.pdf JCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Cipla Ltd ( Dated : March 24, 2008 ) Income tax - Sale and lease back of assets - Depreciation claimed at 50% of the value of assets which are more than 15 years old - There is no infirmity in the transactions and documents related thereto - Overvaluation of the assets for the purpose of claiming higher depreciation rolled back by CIT (A) in view of the WDV of the assets prior in the year prior to the sale/lease back agreement - No infirmity in CIT (A)- s order allowing the depreciation but on a lesser value :MUMBAI ITAT; ACIT, Dehradun Vs M/s BG Exploration & Production India Ltd ( Dated : July 18, 2008 ) Income Tax - Assessee is non-resident company - deals in oil exploration business - signs production sharing contract along with two co-venturers with Govt - claims deduction for exchange loss - AO disallows it on the ground that it is notional - CIT(A) allows it - Issue is already covered by earlier decisions of the Tribunal - Deducation allowed :DELHI ITAT; Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd Vs ACIT, Hyderabad ( Dated :May 9, 2008 ) IDBI and IFCI granted certain relief and concessions to appellant by rescheduling loan instalments and reducing interest rates with a condition to issue CRPS for equivalent sacrificial value – Assessee's claim of CRPS as deferred revenue expenditure and deduction thereof – Since the two institutions have quantified the present value of the future liability i.e. the liability that would arise after the cut-off date has been quantified into its present value – In other words, since the liability to compensate has arisen in the year under consideration, it also crystallized in the same year - Assessee entitled to the deduction of the same from computation of income during the year itself – Appeal allowed - ITAT:HYDERABAD ITAT; M/s Shardul Securities Ltd Vs JCIT, Mumbai ( Dated : February 4, 2008 ) Interest-tax Act 1974 - Section 2(5B), read with section 2(5A) – Held, that principal business as specified in sub-clauses (i) to (v) of section 2(5B) would mean predominant activity out of various activities carried on by assessee, therefore the principal business would refer to only one activity. If one activity is principal activity then other activities would be outside scope of principal activity. Held thus, two activities of business taken together cannot be characterized as principal business. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
CBEC promotes 137 Central Excise Superintendents + 23 Customs Superintendents (Preventive) as Assistant Commissioner; Sunil Sawhney goes to ED as Spl Director;
2008-TIOL-166-SC-CX.pdf + sc cx story.pdf CCE, Delhi Vs M/s Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd (Dated: September 8, 2008) Central Excise – Classification: Even at the cost of repetition we must observe that there has been no attempt on the part of the Revenue to prove that these products are cosmetic as has been held in BPL Pharmaceutical's case. In that view we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding these products to be the medicinal products and we approve of the findings of the Tribunal in that behalf regarding the classification of the product. Central Excise – Valuation: (1) Wherever IRPL had sold products to the IMPL as also to independent third parties including Hotels, the least price charged to the third parties may be taken as the basis for the sales made by IRPL to IMPL for arriving at the assessable value for such products. (2) Wherever the products were never sold by IRPL to the independent third parties, but only to IMPL , the wholesale price of IMPL charged to the wholesale dealers for such products, may be taken as the basis for arriving at the assessable value. (3) While arriving at the assessable value, discounts, freight excise duty, sales tax and other taxes and other permissible deductions under Section 4 should be allowed in accordance with the law." Limitation. This would also go to show that a dispute prevailed in the matter of classification of such products. In the above circumstances, the appellants cannot be held to be guilty of suppression or mis -statement and hence the charge of suppression is not sustainable. We, therefore, hold that the proviso to Section 11A ( 1) of the Central Excise is not applicable to these 3 cases, and hence set aside the demand covered by adjudication order No.5 /98 as time barred.: SUPREME COURT; 2008-TIOL-444-HC-MUM-CX.pdf + limitation story.pdf Central Excise- appeal to High Court – High Court has no power to condone delay – As is obvious from the bare reading of section 35G of the Act, it does not provide for condonation of delay or entertainment of an appeal by the High Court after the prescribed period of limitation of 180 days from the date of receiving of the order are over. The provision is definitely unambiguous and does not admit of any laxity by the party concerned in relation to the period of limitation. The only distinction between the provisions of sections 35G and 35H respectively, is that under one an appeal lies to the High Court while under the other, the reference is to be made to the High Court. The expression `shall' is incapable of any dilution, at least, in comparison to the word `within'. The language used by the Legislature is clear a command to adhere to the period of limitation and leaves no scope of carving out exception to the rule of limitation in such circumstances, is to be construed strictly and would operate with all its vigour. Limitation Act not applicable - It is not essential for the special or local law, in terms, to exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act. It is sufficient that if on a consideration of the language of its provision relating to limitation, the intention to exclude can necessarily be implied. The essence of providing a limitation is that a legal right of remedy available at a given point of time could distinguish in law after expiry of the said period. Where the Legislature gives no power to the court to condone the delay after the specified period of limitation, the court may not be able to assume such a power in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The law is what it reads on its plain and simple reading. The provisions of section 35G admit no ambiguity. In no uncertain terms it commands the institution of the appeal within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Appellate Tribunal by the aggrieved party whereafter the provisions do not give or vest the court with any power to entertain an appeal thereafter. Such exclusion of the provisions of the Limitation Act is, thus, implicit by necessary implication.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT; M/s Vanasthali Textile Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur (Dated: May 8, 2008 ) Central Excise - CENVAT Credit - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - the services on which credit was availed are in respect of activities undertaken after the place of removal of the final products - prima facie no case for total waiver - pre-deposit ordered.:DELHI CESTAT; CCE, Bangalore Vs M/s Simi Engineering (P) Ltd (Dated:June 20, 2008) Central Excise – charges of clandestine clearances – the appeal by revenue does not contain any valid challenge to the order-in-appeal wherein it was held that there was no conclusive evidence to find evasion by the respondents.:CHENNAI CESTAT;
SERVICE TAX SECTION 2008-TIOL-1477-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + st credit story.pdf Maersk India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Raigad (Dated: May 16, 2008) Service Tax Cenvat Credit - Re-assessment of Input services cannot be done by the receiver's jurisdictional authorities: Tribunal sets aside order with consequential relief.:MUMBAI CESTAT; U B Xpress (South) Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Coimbatore (Dated: June 6, 2008) Service Tax - Courier Service – partly in India and partly abroad – No Service Tax payable : From these statutory provisions, it is obvious that the appellants were not liable to pay service tax on the international courier service, part of which, in each transaction, was performed in India and the rest outside India.:CHENNAI CESTAT; M/s HEG Limited Vs CCE, Raipur (Dated: August 6, 2008) ST - Cenvat credit - GTA service - Assessee claims credit was not availed by some GTAs - Revenue allows credit only against certificates produced in the case of each consignment - Not a fit case for total waiver of pre-deposit :DELHI CESTAT;
CUSTOMS SECTION NOTIFICATION Amends Public Notice 27(RE-2005) to replace the period to four years from three years; CASE LAW Spectra Innovations Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: May 8, 2008) Customs – Classification: Microprocessors to be classified under heading 8473.30 as parts of Automatic Data Processing Machines: CHENNAI CESTAT; |
|
||
| |
|
|
|
| Regards Taxindiaonline.com Pvt. Ltd. |
