CBDT is in for trouble; Casual filing of appeals - Bombay HC dismisses another batch of 37 appeals (See 'DDT')

VAT - Authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling under TNVAT Act mooted Already 1509 clarifications given (See 'DDT')

Cabinet gives nod for hike in retirement age from 60 to 62 for ICMR scientists + bonus for railways employees + interim relief for wage board scribes + inclusion of Afghanistan in SAFTA-fold + 12 Central Univs + establishment of India Development Foundation of Overseas Indian;

CCEA okays Daiichi Sankyo purchasing equity shares of Ranbaxy Lab;

Railway Ministry denies any hike in freight rate from Oct 1 ;

FAPCCI organises interactive session with CBEC Chairman PC Jha at Hyderabad today;

No smoking in public place regulations come into force;

US Senate puts stamp of approval on Nuclear Deal

Delhi DRI seizes 10 kg heroin at Pathankot coming through Jammu sector;

ddt 03oct.pdf + levy.pdf + tn_vat.pdf

Education Cess - Stainless Steel Patta Patti or Aluminium Circles under the Compounded Levy Scheme – CBEC clarifies;

editorial.pdf

Banning smoking in public - Let's wish it happy evolution and a good health for ourselves!

cobweb.pdf

Pay Commission marginalises and 'dwarfs' Revenue Services to proletariat-status among Civil Services!

mbuzz1027.pdf

Cabinet approves proposal for 12 new Central Univs; interim relief for scribes;

mbuzz1026.pdf

CCEA okays Daiichi Sankyo purchasing equity shares of Ranbaxy Lab;

mbuzz1025.pdf

Railways Ministry clarifies no increase in freight rates from Oct 1;

mbuzz1024.pdf

Import of sensitive items up between April-July 2008;

mbuzz1023.pdf

Aam Aadmi Insurance Scheme gains popularity

mbuzz1022.pdf

Growing financial crisis: OECD to chart way out

mbuzz1021.pdf

WB aids Nepal to control rising food prices;

2008-TIOL-185-SC-IT.pdf + sc it story.pdf

B M Malani Vs CIT & Anr ( Dated: October 1, 2008 )

Compulsion to pay any unjust dues per se would cause hardship. Share Certificates seized - assessee's request to sell them and appropriate taxes not acceded to – interest demanded- For interpretation of the provision, the principle of purposive construction should be resorted to. Levy of interest although is statutory in nature, inter alia for re-compensating the revenue from loss suffered by non-deposit of tax by the assessee within the time specified therefor. The said principle should also be applied for the purpose of determining as to whether any hardship had been caused or not.

Compulsion to pay any unjust dues per se would cause hardship: A genuine hardship would, inter alia, mean a genuine difficulty. That per se would not lead to a conclusion that a person having large assets would never be in difficulty as he can sell those assets and pay the amount of interest levied.The ingredients of genuine hardship must be determined keeping in view the dictionary meaning thereof and the legal conspectus attending thereto.For the said purpose, another well-known principle, namely, a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong, may also have to be borne in mind. However, another principle should also be borne in mind, namely, that a statutory authority must act within the four corners of the statute. Indisputably, the Commissioner has the discretion not to accede to the request of the assessee, but that discretion must be judiciously exercised. He has to arrive at a satisfaction that the three conditions laid down therein have been fulfilled before passing an order waiving interest.

It was probably in the interest of the revenue itself to realize its dues: As the offer was voluntary, the authorities of the Department subject to any statutory interdict could have considered the request of the appellant. It was probably in the interest of the revenue itself to realize its dues. Whether this could be done in law or not has not been gone into.: SUPREME COURT;

2008-TIOL-481-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

CIT, Delhi Vs Tosha International Ltd ( Dated: September 23, 2008 )

Income Tax - Sec 41(1) - Assessee manufactures black and white picture tubes - runs into huge losses and bacomes sick - goes to BIFR - banks waive off interest and settles for 60% of principal amount - AO treats the principal amount directed credited to the capital reserve account as income of the assessee - CIT(A) does not consider it as income either under Sec 41(1) or Sec 28(iv) or Sec 2(24) - Tribunal dismisses the Revenue's appeal on the ground that the same could have been treated as income provided the assessee would have claimed deduction or benefit or allowance in relation to loss, expenditure or trading liability by way of cessation of liability; since nothing of this sort happens in this case, the appeal is not sustainable - HC finds no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision - Revenue's appeal dismissed : DELHI HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-480-HC-AHM-IT.pdf

Sheela Ashokkumar Goenka Vs Designated Authority Under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme ( Dated : July 1, 2008 )

Income tax – Revision application under s. 264 filed after expiry of nine months of due date – Declaration filed under KVSS filed a day later - It is not open to the Designated Authority to decide in the proceedings under KVVS whether the revision application was barred by limitation or not; or whether the delay was required to be condoned or not – Order of the Designated Authority quashed : GUJARAT HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-479-HC-MUM-IT.pdf

CIT Vs M/s Dimple Drums & Barriers Ltd ( Dated : September 25, 2008 )

Income Tax - A litigant is expected to be vigilant and diligent. A party who sleeps over his rights and does not act diligently cannot be shown undue indulgence – High Court dismisses 37 Revenue appeals : BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-478-HC-DEL-IT.pdf + eastman story.pdf

CIT Vs Eastman Industries Ltd (Dated: September 16, 2008)

Income tax – Depreciation – A crucial piece of evidence with regard to date of acquisition of asset in the first half of FY missed by the AO but recorded by the CIT & Tribunal based on which 100% depreciation is allowable - It is a question of fact but not law and does not call for interference

Income tax – Capital gains on transfer of block of assets – s. 50 (2) of the Act provides for the computation of capital gains where block of assets ceases to exist for the reason that all the assets in the block are transferred in the previous year – When some of the assets still remained in the books at the end of the year the provisions of s.50(2) – No substantial question of law arose for interference : DELHI HIGH COURT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1610-CESTAT-KOL.pdf + lapse story.pdf

M/s Shalimar Wires Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Kol-IV (Dated: June 11, 2008)

Central Excise - Additional duty of excise under Goods of Special Importance Act 1957 on intermediate goods captively consumed  - Show cause notices issued for recovery of AED by invoking the provisions of Central Excise Act are valid - matter remanded to examine the marketability of the goods.: KOLKATA CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1609-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s PAP Flon Engg Co Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: August 26, 2008)

Central Excise – Shortage of raw materials noticed at the time of factory visit of officials – Appellant's claim that those were contained in finished goods manufactured but not entered in RG 1 register to be verified by original authority – All issues kept open for assessees who are at liberty to raise the same before the original authority : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1608-CESTAT-AHM .pdf

M/s Cummins India Ltd Vs CCE, Daman (Dated: August 19, 2008)

Central Excise - Assesee clears two DG sets against CT-3 certificates provided by their customers - same were later rejected and returned - for lack of space in the factory premises, the same were kept in a hired godown outside the factory - Revenue alleges intention of duty evasion - since the goods were not brought inside the factory for rectifictaion and the question of duty payment on second clearance does not arise - Assessee's appeal allowed

Assessee clears two radiators on delivery challans - Revenue demands duty - assessee argues the two radiators were a part of IC Engines cleared earlier against a contract price and no duty was to be paid - but the assessee paid the duty and also interest - Duty confirmed and penalty reduced to 25% - Penalty on two employees of the assessee company set aside: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1604-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Pondicherry Vs M/s S V Sivalinga Nadar & Sons (Dated: July 10, 2008)

Central Excise – exemption under Notification 6/2002 CE for edible oils put up in unit containers – denial of exemption on the ground that the packs contained brandname – the superscribed words simply represented the name of the respondents and nothing else - the findings of the lower authorities that these markings on the product label did not constitute any brandname is perfectly justifiable. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1613-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + bizcom story.pdf

M/s E-BIZ.COM Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Noida (Dated: September 3, 2008)

Service Tax: For any appeal/application before the CESTAT, a minimum fee of Rs.1000 /- has to be paid. The Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that in terms of Section 86 (6) the appellant is required to pay fee only when there is demand of service tax interest and penalty - the amount thereof determines the amount of fee. Where there is no such demand by way of service tax and interest or penalty, no fee would be payable. The “submission is wholly misconceived and, if we may say so, self-defeating . This, indeed, is one of the reasons why we are inclined to think that the appeal is not maintainable - that there must be a demand by way of service tax or interest or penalty. On a plain reading it is manifest that appeal lies only where there is a demand towards service tax and/or interest, or penalty has been imposed. We are inclined to think that even if the appeal were maintainable, the appellant is required to pay the minimum fee prescribed by the statute, that is, one thousand rupees. We hold accordingly.”

No appeal maintainable against a clarificatory letter issued by an AC; As rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is not understandable as to how the appellant concluded that they have been denied credit which was otherwise admissible to them. There being no determination of rights - final or adverse to the appellant - the letter being merely 'clarificatory' in nature, issued at the behest of the appellant themselves, we are inclined to think that there was no cause of action for the appellant to file any appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), and after the said appeal was dismissed, to file another appeal to the Tribunal.

Courts are not supposed to decide academic issues unless necessary for deciding the appeal: It is well settled that Courts including tribunals performing quasi-judicial functions are not supposed to decide academic issues unless decision on the issue is necessary for deciding the appeal etc. : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1612-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Power Grid Corp Of India Vs CST, New Delhi (Dated: September 9, 2008)

ST - telegraph service - Assessee provides broadband telecommunication service to several telecom and BPO companies - Revenue raises demand - Assessee pleads that it is registered under Sec 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act and its customers are also registered telegraph authorities and since it is a service between two telegraph authorities it is not taxable - Since all the customers of the assessee are not registered as telegraph authority, it is not a fit case for granting waiver from pre-deposit : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1611-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Ludhiana Vs M/s Nahar Fibre (Dated: July 23, 2008)

ST - GAT Service - assessee avails cenvat credit for payment of tax on output service defined under Explanation to Rule 2(P) of CCRs - Revenue disallows - Issue is no longer res integra and goes in favour of assessee : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1606-CESTAT-AHM.pdf + GTA story.pdf

M/s Panchmahal Steel Ltd Vs CCE & C, Vadodara II (Dated: September 9, 2008)

Service Tax – Goods Transport Agency Service – whether credit of service tax on inward transportation can be used for payment of service tax on subsequent inward consignments? – Matter goes to Larger Bench. : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt08_112.pdf

Tariff value of brass scraps and poppy seeds revised;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-482-HC-AHM-CUS.pdf + rta story.pdf

CC, Ahmedabad Vs Bharat Kumar Bakorbhai Parmar ( Dated: September 15, 2008 )

Customs – abetment of smuggling – RTA officials who issued certificates for vintage cars, not liable for penalty under Customs Act: whether his functioning as a motor vehicle inspector was contrary to the guidelines of his department would not be relevant for the purpose of imposition of penalty under Section 114 of the Act unless it can be shown that his acts or omissions were significant and facilitated to the export. Neither of these requirements was satisfied. There is nothing on record to show that they have played any active role in facilitating an illegal export of Vintage cars

No question of law on findings of fact by Tribunal: This being the finding of fact by the Tribunal, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal and hence all the three Appeals are accordingly dismissed. : GUJARAT HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-1607-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Honeywell Technology Solutions Lab Pvt Ltd (EHTP) Vs CC, Bangalore (Dated: June 16, 2008)

Customs – 100% EOU – Goods imported by EOU put to use for a different purpose – Matter regularized by STP/EHTP authorities and imposed a penalty – Relevant notifications and Board's Clarification allows inter unit transfer of goods and provides for a simplified procedure – STP/EHTP authorities cannot be alleged as interested parties - Rigid system of obtaining permission results in inefficiency & non-performance – Mere procedural infraction does not entail demand of duty and imposition of penalties – Impugned orders set aside : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1605-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Trans Trades Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: April 17, 2008)

Statements recorded under Section 108 are valid evidence. It was held by the Apex Court that statements of co-accused are admissible evidence : CHENNAI CESTAT;