Service Tax on GTA - CAG refuses to give up (See 'DDT')

External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) Policy – mining, exploration and refining added (See 'DDT')

FM okays 16 FDI proposals worth Rs 794 Crore;

DPC for Chief Commissioners: CBEC finally goes for 17 vacancies; M S Badhan is last person;

Chennai Airport Customs seizes electronic goods worth Rs 18 lakh from pax coming from Singapore;

WB Chief calls for bringing India under G-7 fold;

Chennai Airport Customs seizes 380 live ornamental fishes coming from Singapore + Malaysia;

Law Commission Chairman expresses concern over growing pendency of cases;

ddt 8 oct.pdf + pressnote.pdf

Central Excise - Registration – manufacturers of LNG can register different premises under one Commissioner;

spl down.pdf

Intra-organisational software exports: Not easy to claim Sec 10A benefits!

2008-TIOL-489-HC-KOL-FEMA.pdf + FEMA story.pdf

Suborno Bose Vs Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange ( Dated: September 17, 2008 )

FEMA – failure to import after obtaining foreign exchange – Penalty justified - violation which has been done by the appellant/petitioner, cannot be stated to be a technical violation and it is well-settled law that contravention of the said Act or Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 has created a strict liability. The violation of these two Acts would come within the meaning of economic offence and cannot be treated as technical offence.:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT;

rbi_noti_service_charge.pdf

Levy of Service Charges for Electronic Payment Products and Outstation Cheque Collection ;

rbi_not_interest

Payment of interest on accounts frozen by banks;

fdi.pdf

FM okays 16 FDI proposals worth Rs 794 Crore;

mbuzz1041.pdf

RBI directs banks to pay interest on frozen accounts;

mbuzz1040.pdf

NAIS claims: FM to write to CMs to clear outstandings;

mbuzz1039.pdf

India, Germany sign pact to exempt Indian workers from contributing to social security fund;

2008-TIOL-490-HC-MUM-IT.pdf + lab it story.pdf

John Wyeth And Brother Ltd Vs CIT, Bombay ( Dated: September 23, 2008 )

IT – deduction of laboratory expenses of foreign Head Office – AO without verification disallows, CIT(A) without verification allows; Tribunal remands – mere statement of the assessee cannot be accepted without verification: Assessing Officer has without calling for any documents pertaining to the laboratory expenses come to the conclusion that the laboratory expenses would fall under the category of "executive and general administration expenses" and, therefore, ceiling prescribed under sec.44C would apply to such expenses. On the other hand, the CIT( A) without any verification by merely relying on the assessee's statement that the research and development expenditure claimed does not include the expenditure in the nature of rents, rates, taxes, salaries etc. reached the conclusion that the laboratory expenditure was not connected with the general and administrative expenditure covered by clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of explanation (iv) of section 44C . The Tribunal in the absence of any evidence has not reached a final conclusion whether laboratory expenses are covered under section 44C or not and has taken a very reasonable and rational view namely that the matter requires consideration If mere statement of the assessee is accepted without any verification as is done in the instant case by CIT( A), the object of introducing section 44C would get frustrated.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-488-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

Wel Intertrade Private Limited Vs ITO, New Delhi ( Dated: August 11, 2008 )

Income Tax - Notice u/s 148 - AO alleges escapement of income and seeks details related to exchange fluctuation loss - Details furnished - AO makes addition - Notice u/s 148 - Assessee alleges lack of jurisdiction as re-assessment done beyond four years - Held, since the assessee had fully and wholly disclosed information in the return, re-assessment u/s 147 cannot be initaited and it was without jurisdiction - Assessee's appeal allowed :DELHI HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-486-HC-ALL-IT.pdf

CIT Vs M/s Shyam Lal Agrawal (HUF) ( Dated: July 30, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessees are two HUFs - First assessee consists of himself, his wife and two minor sons and the second assessee is made up of himself, his wife and a minor daughter - they file applications claiming partial partion - ITO rejects applications and also salary paid to karta and interest paid to family members - First appellate authority allows the appeal - Tribunal also does the same - Held, as per settled law, partition cannot be denied as long as a male member in the HUF is wants it and female members not demanding it, partition cannot be denied - Assessee's appeal allowed :ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-485-HC-AHM-IT.pdf

CIT (TDS) Vs Reliance Industries Ltd ( Dated: September 11, 2008 )

Income Tax - Rule 3(7)(iii) - Assessee distributes free food coupons to employees for purchase of meal from canteen - enters into an agreement with a company for the same - claims payment made is not taxable as perquisite - AO insists the meal scheme was partly misused by employees who collected cosmetics and other items in place of meal from shops on the premises and the assessee was liable to deduct tax at source- AO initiates proceedings u/s 201 and Sec 201(1A) and also penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) found that the assessee and the contracted party took sufficient steps to prevent misuse of the coupons and complied with the conditions under the Rule - Tribunal upholds the CIT(A) order - Held, the assessee at the time of issuance of coupons cannot envisage as to which of the mployees would misuse the scheme; the primary liability to offer the amount for tax is that of the employee concerned and it is only by a prescribed mode of recovery that the employer is required to deduct tax at source. Such deduction has to be specifically employee-wise and the employer cannot be called upon to presume that a particular percentage of employees, out of the total workforce, shall misuse the facility so as to warrant deduction of tax at source - Tribunal's order upheld and Revenue's appeal dismissed :GUJARAT HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-484-HC-AHM-IT.pdf

CIT Vs Claris Lifesciences Ltd ( Dated: August 7, 2008 )

Income Tax - Sec 35(2AB) benefits - Assessee sets up inhouse R & D facility and applies for approval - Approval comes with a specific date - assessee claims weighted deduction on entire expenses incurred for setting up the facility - AO allows it but with a rider that the expenditure prior to the date of approval is not allowable - CIT(A) agrees but Tribunal disagrees with this view - Held, once an R & D facility is approved, the entire expenditure incurred on development of R & D facility is to be allowed for weighted deduction as provided by Section 35(2AB). The legislative intention is to boost the R & D facility in India, there is no provision for specified time in the statute for availing the relief - no scope for any other interpretation than the one of the tribunal - Revenue's appeal rejected : GUJARAT HIGH COURT;

rlt_88_part6.pdf + rlt_88_part5.pdf + rlt_88_part4.pdf

RLT caselaw headnotes;

cbecorder244_2008.pdf

CBEC goes for reshuffle of Members' charge;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1642-CESTAT-KOL.pdf + addl charge story.pdf

CCE, Siliguri Vs Mall Eximp (P) Ltd (Dated: June 30, 2008)

Central Excise - jurisdiction - Commissioner ( Haldia ) has no locus standi to file miscellaneous application in respect of case arising in Siliguri Commissionerate - Additional charge given by the Chief Commissioner is not valid in absence of any delegation of power by the Board to the Chief Commissioner to do so - The Board has no authority to delegate its power to appoint a Commissioner and specify his jurisdiction - The Central Government has not delegated Board's Authority to the Chief Commissioner in this regard - Rule 3 of Central Excise Rules.

Review by the Committee of the Commissioners - the file noting does not indicate that the Commissioners have exercised their independent mind in taking the decision to file Appeal - On the contrary, they have agreed to file the Appeal merely because of the views expressed in the letter from the Chief Commissioner's Office and hence, the decision of the Committee is not a result of application of independent judicial mind and is not valid.: KOLKATA CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1641-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s KLJ Polymers & Chemicals Ltd Vs CCE, Vapi (Dated: August 4, 2008)

Central Excise - Modvat Credit on the inputs received in piecemeal - demand is time barred as the Bill of entry was defaced by the Range Superintendent after verification - the objection is only with regard to timing of availment of credit which cannot be a basis for denial of credit.:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1640-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Futura Fibres Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: July 22, 2008)

Central Excise – refund of unutilized credit of Additional Excise duty under Textiles and Textile articles consequent to the exemption of AED under Notification 31/2004 – refund of CENVAT Credit is allowed only in case of export of goods and in no other case, refund of credit allowed in cash – Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1639-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Narmada Chemicals (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Pondy (Dated: July 14, 2008)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – Credit is allowed on the duty paid on the inputs – credit cannot be restricted on the ground that the supplier has given year-end discount.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1638-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + unjust st story.pdf

CCE, Bangalore Vs Standard Chartered Bank, India Card Centre (Dated: August 1, 2008)

Service Tax – unjust enrichment - provisions of unjust enrichment as applicable under the Central Excise do not apply in the service tax cases - it has been held that the provisions of unjust enrichment as applicable under the central excise act and rules made there under do not apply in the service tax cases in as much as under central excise duty is required to be paid on raising the invoice/bill whereas under service tax provisions, the date of raising the bill or invoice is not at all relevant but it is only payable on the actual amount realised by the service provider. In other words, if the amount is not realised in respect of any services provided the assessee is not required to pay any service tax and if any such tax is paid on such unrealized amount, the same has to be treated as excess payment liable to be refunded.: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1637-CESTAT-KOL.pdf

M/s Shiva Cement Ltd Vs CCE, CC & ST BBSR-II (Dated: August 7, 2008)

Service tax – Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit – modification of stay order - credit on service tax paid on outward freight - mere pendency of a reference before larger Bench ipso facto does not grant relief to the litigant - Revenue shall be prejudiced if there shall be an order waiving pre-deposit fully during pendency of the Appeal – 50% pre-deposit ordered.: KOLKATA CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1636-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Ralson Carbon Black Ltd Vs CCE, Jalandhar (Dated: August 26, 2008)

ST - Stay / pre-deposit - Assessee pleads acute financial hardship - argues BIFR decision is awaited - Since the assessee has not made any deposit as per Commissioner(A) order, pre-deposit ordered and Commissioner(A) directed to hear the case on merit without insisting for more deposits :DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2008-TIOL-487-HC-KOL-COFEPOSA.pdf

Vinod Kumar Garg Vs Union of India ( Dated: September 19, 2008 )

Customs – Irregularity in availing duty exemption benefit – Detention Order under COFEPOSA - Appellants plea that authorities do not have jurisdiction to issue such order not tenable – There is nothing on record to suggest that the order was passed on vague or extraneous or irrelevant grounds - No merits in appeal :CALCUTTA HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-1635-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Electronic Studio Pvt Ltd Vs CC, New Delhi (Dated: July 17, 2008)

Customs – interim order of the Commissioner in imposing certain conditions for re-export of goods is not an appealable order under Section 129A of the Customs Act.:DELHI CESTAT;