CBEC probationers inducted; Chairman P C Jha asks them to maintain high standards;

Govt gives nod to 27 more SEZ, including 10 'in-principle' approval;

FM says ban on rice export will go soon; also terms bank strike as unnecessary;

PM leaves on 10-day USA tour; all set to wrap up N-deal;

Govt giving second thought over Commodity tax;

Three terrorists nabbed planning more blasts in Delhi; BJP seeks tough anti-terror law;

ddt 22 Sept.pdf

CBEC – need for a Sixth Member exclusively for Service Tax;

tiol top guest.pdf

Neutrality attributed to VAT is more ephemeral than real!

guest column.pdf

Levy of Service Tax on services provided by SEZ units to DTA recipients: Is CBEC correct in assuming jurisdiction;

Finance.pdf

MoF reduces Stamp Duty on debentures and P-Notes transactions;

mbuzz992.pdf

BoA approves 28 more SEZs, including 10 'in-principle' approval;

mbuzz991.pdf

Govt hikes ECB limit for infrastructure sector from USD 100 mn to USD 500 mn;

mbuzz990.pdf

Induction of probationers: CBEC Chairman calls for maintaining highest standard;

mbuzz989.pdf

Labour Minister calls for review of industrial disputes resolution system;

mbuzz988.pdf

Ministry of Tourism to host Thematic Conferences: Responsible Tourism for Inclusive Growth;

2008-TIOL-461-HC-ALL-IT.pdf + remand story.pdf

M/s Harsingar Gutkha Pvt Ltd Vs ITAT (Dated: September 3, 2008)

Income Tax – Remanded case – Tribunal cannot go beyond the directions of the High Court - When a direction is issued to an Authority or Tribunal to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the thing must be done in that manner and in no other manner. When an order is passed by a higher authority, the lower authority is bound thereby keeping in view the principles of judicial discipline.

In the case of Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, the Privy Council has held that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. In the instant case, the matter was remitted to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by this Court with certain directions and it was not open for the Tribunal to take fresh evidence in the matter as no such direction was issued by this Court. The impugned order by which a fresh direction has been issued by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer is legally not sustainable.: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-460-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

CIT, Chennai Vs M/s Sri Narayana Gurtuviah Chettys Estate ( Dated: September 1, 2008 )

Income Tax - Sec 11 - Assessee is a trust - rents out kalayanamandapam on commercial basis - AO denies exemption - CIT(A) and Tribunal set aside the AO's order - Held, as per settled laws, a business whose income is utilised for the purpose of the trust is incidental to the realisation of the objectives of the trust, and there is no flaw in the Tribunal's order - Revenue's appeal dismissed :MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-459-HC-MUM-IT.pdf

M/s Solid Containers Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai ( Dated: August 29, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee takes loan for business purposes - Dispute - Issue settled out of court and the assesee was not to pay any amount - Assessee credited the loan amount to the reserves account but offered interest amount for taxation - AO makes addition for the entire sum - Assessee argues the sum was not a deemed profit u/s 41(1) - But, no relief from Tribunal - Held, even though it was capital receipt when the loan was taken, it changed its character when it became assessee's own money - Tribunal order upheld and the assessee's appeal dismissed:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-458-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

CIT, Delhi-X Vs Shri Anand Swarup Khandelwal ( Dated : September 8, 2008 )

Income Tax - Search & Seizure - Block assessment - AO makes addition by disallowing 20% of expenditure incurred for cash purchases - Tribunal sets aside the order as the AO fails to furnish evidence that the assessee was into trading of goods and the goods traded belonged to him - Held, since the assessee was a commission agent, and there is categorical finding by the Tribunal that loose papers seized by the Revenue merely indicate the volume of goods that passed through the assessee who earned commission income which has been disclosed in the block period return, there is no justification for disallowing 20% of expenditure u/s 40A(3) - Revenue's appeal dism :DELHI HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-457-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

CIT, Chennai Vs Poompuha Shipping Corporation ( Dated: August 18, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee is a State PSU - claims deduction for unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years against income from heads of income other than business - Revenue disallows - CIT(A) and Tribunal allow assessee's appeal - Since CoD clearance not obtained by the Revenue, petition dismissed :MADRAS HIGH COURT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1540-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CCE, Mangalore Vs M/s Shantha Satelite Vision, Basrur , Kundapura (Dated: June 23, 2008)

Penalty is not leviable in cases where the service tax and interest was paid before issue of show cause notice: This Bench has considered the issue afresh in all similar appeals and upheld the view that when service tax and interest has been paid before the issue of show cause notice, in such circumstance, the penalty is not leviable. In this case, setting aside the interest by the Commissioner is not justified. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) with respect to waiving of interest is set aside while the order setting aside the penalty is confirmed.: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1539-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Pondicherry Vs M/s Electronics & Controls Power Systems (P) Ltd (Dated: July 21, 2008)

Central Excise – interest on differential duty paid on account of refund of CST – since it is not a case of payment of differential duty on supplementary invoices, interest under Section 11 AB is leviable – Order – In – Appeal is set aside and Order-In-Original restored.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1545-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + catering story.pdf

M/s Raj Kumar Jain Vs CCE, Jaipur-I (Dated : August 7, 2008)

Service Tax – Out door catering – In the premises of the client – liable to tax; the service rendered by the appellant squarely falls under the category of outdoor catering service as per the definition of 65(105)( zzt ). Cum duty benefit to be allowed; Penalty is not sustainable and is set aside. :DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1544-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Munjal Sales Corporation Vs CCE, Ludhiana (Dated : August 13, 2008)

ST - Business Auxiliary Service - Assessee receives service from foreign commission agent - Assessee argues that an explanation dated 16.6.2005 was inserted to the term 'Commission Agent' and the same is retrospective and exemption is available to it - Pre-deposit waived and stay granted:DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1543-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Jaipur-I Vs M/s Vinayak Leasing & Finance (Dated: June 27, 2008)

ST - Business Auxiliary Service - Assessee aids clients in obtaining vehicle loans from banks - Revenue raises demand - Commissioner (A) holds banks cannot be a client for the assessee as the service is provided to loan-seekers - Issue is no longer res integra as the assessee is providing marketing services to the 'Banking and Financial Services' and is very much covered under service tax net - matter remanded for fresh consideration:DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft08pn083.pdf

VKGUY entitlement: CUCUMBERS & GHERKINS;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1542-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + dri story.pdf

M/s Maa Krupa Forwarders Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated : August 14, 2008)

When the investigating agency, DRI, did not consider the evidence to be strong enough to call for immediate suspension of the licence, no emergency can be said to exist after a time lag of 7-8 months so as to warrant suspending the licence without issuing a show cause notice as contemplated under Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004 :MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1541-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Shri Y Kamesh Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: July 15, 2008)

Customs – demand of duty on goods imported under DEEC scheme – appeal limited to penalty only imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act – failure to fulfill export obligation was due to genuine reasons – penalty not warranted. :CHENNAI CESTAT;