Arrears of salary to Govt employees as per Cabinet decision on Pay Panel report: CBDT clarifies TDS to be deducted only on 40% arrears actually paid during fiscal;

DRI focuses on undervaluation and misdeclaration by MNCs in IT sector; gets deposits of Rs 34 Cr from HP; Rs 48 Cr from software resellers of Microsoft;

Seagram India's Rs 40 Cr Customs duty case: SC says no to stay on recovery of duty; 90 days period of duty deposit as per Tribunal's order also lapses;

Panic over ICICI Bank's falling liquidity; RBI clarifies bank has enough funds with it to pay depositors;

100 killed in stampede at Chamunda Devi temple in Rajasthan;

India welcomes UN General Assembly decision to expand Security Council;

Govt gets SC nod to go ahead with no-smoking rules from Oct 2; Apex Court orders transfer of all cases pending before HCs; HCs also restrained from admitting new petitions;

ddt 30 Sept.pdf

Central Excise – One More Complicated Return - Annual Installed/Production Capacity;

stgst.pdf

Customised software - service, sale or both?

Income tax returns in Sikkim.pdf + Order.pdf

CBDT extends last date of filing of income tax returns, due on July 31 to Oct 31, 2008 for State of Sikkim in view of delay in issue of Instruction No 8/2008;

mbuzz1015.pdf

SEBI Chairman says market is under close watch; no settlement issues pending;

mbuzz1014.pdf

Arrears of salary to Govt employees as per Cabinet decision on Pay Panel report: CBDT clarifies TDS to be deducted only on 40% arrears actually paid during fiscal;

mbuzz1013.pdf

DRI focuses on undervaluation and misdeclaration by MNCs in IT sector; gets deposits of Rs 34 Cr from HP; Rs 48 Cr from software resellers of Microsoft ;

CIRCULAR

it08cir09.pdf

Income-Tax Deduction From Salaries During The Financial Year 2008-2009 Under Section 192 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-472-HC-AHM-IT.pdf + retraction story.pdf

Kailashben Manharlal Choshi Vs CIT ( Dated: September 1, 2008 )

Income Tax - Search & seizure - Assessee's statement of disclosure recorded u/s 132(4) - After two months the same was retracted - AO calls it afterthought under legal advice and makes additions - CIT(A) and Tribunal uphold AO's order - Held, additions cannot be made merely on the basis of statements recorded u/s 132(4) - Revenue needs to get corroborative evidence in support of the statements made - unless evidence contrary to the retraction is produced, additions not admissible - Assessee's appeal allowed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-471-HC-MUM-IT.pdf

M/s National Plastics Vs ITO, Mumbai ( Dated: August 29, 2008 )

Income Tax - Invocation of Sec 145 - Additions made for alleged undisclosed gross profit - Held, in view of settled laws, and also the opinion of AO that there were instances of various leakages of revenue in the Books of Account and method of accounting applied was not proper, the appeals are not sustainable:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-470-HC-AHM-IT.pdf

M/s Deval Sales Corporation Vs CIT ( Dated : July 2, 2008 )

Income tax – Declaration under KVSS - Scope of all the three proceedings viz. declaration under KVSS, revision application under Section 264 of the Act and Appeal under Section 249 of the Act are different and independent of each other - As a Designated Authority it is not open to exercise jurisdiction and powers vested in the Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner (Appeals) considering the scope of the proceedings which have been brought before the Designated Authority under a different statute viz. Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 – Order passed by the Designated Authority donning different roles and drawing the powers of the other roles to dispose of the application is unsustainable in law – Proceedings to be initiated afresh by the Designated Authority without influenced by any orders passed later on – Proceedings restored to its original position as on date of first appeal:GUJARAT HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-469-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

CIT, Coimbatore Vs M/s Annamalai Finance Ltd ( Dated: August 13, 2008 )

Interest Tax - No tax is leviable on amounts collected on belated payment - Revenue's appeal dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT;

cbecorder232_2008.pdf

CBEC issues transfer order of three Commissioners;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

NOTIFICATION

exnt08_37.pdf

Commissioners' panel for review cases amended for Delhi;

exnt08_36.pdf

Chief Commissioners' panel for review cases amended for Delhi;

exnt08_34.pdf

Commissioners' committee for review cases in Karnataka amended;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-184-SC-CX.pdf + sc story.pdf

CCE, Kanpur Vs M/s New Decent Footwear Industries ( Dated: September 25, 2008 )

When the Revenue has accepted the order of the Tribunal in respect of one party, on the same set of facts, appeal against another party cannot be allowed: As the Revenue had accepted the decision in the case of Bata India Ltd. arising from the same order of the authority in original and there being no change on facts the appeal against the respondent could not be proceeded with. We are also in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that Revenue was not justified in invoking the extended period of limitation. The appeal is dismissed.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-473-HC-AHM-CX.pdf

Cosmonaut Chemicals & Anr Vs Union of India & Anr ( Dated : July 30, 2008 )

Central Excise – Rebate claim under Rule 12 (1)(a) of Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 beyond the stipulated period of one year – Delay caused by the Customs Authorities in not providing the prescribed documents to be filed with the claim led to delay in rebate claim - Adjudicating Authority and the Revisionary Authority have read the period of limitation divorced from sub-paragraph No.2.4 of the CBEC Manual which has provided for a circumstance to mitigate the unwarranted hardship resulting from reading the provision of limitation in absolute terms – The period of limitation has to be considered in light of availability of the requisite documents in terms of s.11B of the Act read with Para 2.4 of CBEC Manual - Order of the Revisionary Authority set aside and claims restored to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration :GUJARAT HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-1595-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + Craft Interiors story.pdf (same story associated with caselaws listed below)

M/s Craft Interiors (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated: June 24, 2008)

Central Excise – Manufacture of storage cabinets, kitchen counters, running counters, large reception/conference tables etc - The word ‘furniture' has a meaning in common parlance which commonly refers to chairs, desks, tables, beds, etc – Ordinarily, furniture is not something immovable or something which is fixed in a position that can be removed only by cannibalizing - The test laid down is, if the items cannot be removed without reducing them to broken pieces then they will not be considered as furniture - When a question of interpretation is involved, it is not correct to allege suppression and invoke the longer period – Matter remanded to the original authorities to examine the issues in the light of Apex Court judgment by limiting the issues to normal period and extending the benefit of SSI exemption notifications : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1594-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + Craft Interiors story.pdf (same story as above)

M/s Mehta & Company Mumbai Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam -I (Dated: July 28, 2008)

Central Excise – Manufacture of furniture as part of interior decoration work – I tems which are permanently fixed to the walls and ground of the room cannot be removed from one place to another without causing much damage to them - Furniture embedded to site and which cannot be removed without cannibalization are not excisable goods – Demand also hit by limitation of time as there is no justification for invoking the extended period : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1593-CESTAT-BANG .pdf + Craft Interiors story.pdf (same story as above)

M/s Monalisa Interior Decorators Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore -I (Dated: July 25, 2008)

Central Excise – Manufacture and excisability of work stations – Work undertaken by independent contractors - Word ‘furniture' has a meaning in common parlance which commonly refers to chairs, desks, tables, beds, etc – Test laid down by Apex Court in Craft Interior's case to be followed – Appellant to make all the submissions before the Original authority - Matter remanded to the original authority to examine all the issues in the light of Apex Court judgment : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1592-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + Craft Interiors story.pdf (same story as above)

M/s Teekays Interior Solutions (Pvt) Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Date of hearing: : June 24, 2008)

Central Excise – Manufacture and excisability of furniture – Work stations/partitions/ wall panels are manufactured at site – Goods are immovable and hence not excisable – Test of cannibalization laid down by Supreme Court in Craft Interior's case followed - Turnover of moveable goods within the SSI Exemption limit : BANGALORE CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1596-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Areva T & D India Limited Vs CCE, Allahabad (Dated: August 6, 2008)

ST - Cenvat credit - Assessee is a manufacturer - avails credit for utilising GTA service by paying tax on 25% of value of freight charges - Since declarations of non-availment of credit from GTAs were not filed, SCN issued - Since the Revenue has failed to verify the veracity of certificates issued by GTAs about non-availment of credit, their objection that the credit might have been utilised by the GTAs only remains a surmise - case remanded :DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1590-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Nagpur Vs M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd (Dated: July 18, 2008)

CENVAT Credit – Credit availed on security services for residential colony – Earlier decision of CESTAT allowing credit on repairs and maintenance of residential colony followed by Commr (A) :MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1589-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

OEN India Ltd Vs CCE, Cochin (Dated: July 4, 2008)

Service Tax - Royalty not covered under Consulting Engineer : BANGALORE CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-474-HC-MUM-CUS.pdf + arrest story.pdf

Sultan Kamruddin Dharani Vs Union of India ( Dated: September 19, 2008 )

Arrest under Customs Act – offence being bailable, accused has a right for bail – Court cannot impose condition of surrender of passport or bar on foreign travel: an unfettered right is granted to be enlarged on bail to a person other than a person accused of non-bailable offence arrested or detained without any warrant by an Officer in charge of a police station or when such a person appears or is brought before a Court. Subject to first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 436 of the Code of 1973, the Court may modulate the condition of bail as regards the bail amount and the number of sureties. However, the Court cannot impose a condition which is not a term as to the bail. The condition of requiring a person accused of a bailable offence to surrender his passport to the Court is not a term as to bail. If in such a case a condition is imposed that bail is granted subject to condition of deposit of passport, such a condition will defeat the absolute right of the accused under section 436(1) of the said Code to be set at liberty. In the circumstances, while enlarging the Petitioner on bail in a bailable offence, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct deposit of the passport. The Magistrate cannot impose a condition while granting bail in a bailable offence of not leaving India without the permission of the Court. Whenever the Petitioner is enlarged on bail, he is bound to attend the concerned Court on the date fixed or whenever he is called upon to do so. This obligation is created by the bail bond. If he desires to remain absent, he will have to seek an exemption from the Court. In a given case if there is an apprehension that the accused is likely to abscond, steps can also to be taken under the appropriate provisions of law. Steps can be also taken for impounding the passport.

Bail has to be given even if he is not able to give surety: Such a person has to be enlarged on bail provided he is prepared to give bail. If such person is indigent and is unable to furnish surety, by dispensing with the requirement of furnishing bail or surety, he has to be discharged on his executing a personal bond without sureties. If such a person is unable to give bail within a period of one week from the date of his arrest, by legal fiction, the law presumes that the person is an indigent person and thus he will have to be discharged on executing a personal bond without sureties.

Thus, the position of the law is that a person who is alleged to have committed a bailable offence has an unfettered and absolute right to be enlarged on bail and the Court or the Police Officer concerned, as the case may be, has no discretion to grant or refuse bail: BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-1591-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CC, Bangalore Vs HSBC Electronics Data Processing India Pvt Ltd (Dated: June 27, 2008)

Customs – 100% EOU – Imported goods as well as Goods from DTA procured only with the knowledge of the department by following the prescribed procedure - Having granted the exemption at the time of import it is not proper to put the entire blame on the respondent after a period of three years on the ground that the impugned goods are not entitled for the benefit of the exemption notification – No infirmity in Impugned Order : BANGALORE CESTAT;