MoF working on measures to cushion panic-stricken markets;

President Pratibha Patil gets threat email on her pune visit;

RBI to delay liberalisation policy for foreign banks;

Govt taking measures to diversify India's trade basket: Jairam Ramesh;

123 Agreement has legal binding on us: Pranab Mukherjee;

Global slowdown to affect India but growth rate likely to be 7% next fiscal: IMF;

Govt to issue coins in honour of Sister Alphonsa;

Indian banks have minimal exposure to distressed assets: RBI;

Sustainable tourism - OECD calls for 'whole of govt' approach;

wb story.pdf

WB launches South-South Initiative to share development knowledge to mitigate poverty;

marble story.pdf

DGFT comes out with fresh guidelines for import of rough marbles; fixes ceiling of 40,000 MT for current year;

RBI Notifi For CRR.pdf

Section 42(1) of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 - Maintenance of CRR;

mbuzz1052.pdf

Our banking system is strong; we need not worry: RBI Governor;

mbuzz1051.pdf

Govt to issue coins in honour of Sister Alphonsa;

mbuzz1050.pdf

Sustainable tourism - OECD calls for 'whole of govt' approach ;

2008-TIOL-475-ITAT-DEL.pdf + reserve story.pdf

M/s Power Finance Corporation Ltd Vs JCIT, Delhi (Dated: July 31, 2008)

Income tax – Creation of special reserve for the AY 1997-98 under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act – Reserve created on 31.03.98 i.e. in subsequent year/years is allowable for AY 1997-98 subject to the same being from the profits of eligible business of the appellant from the assessment year 1997-98 and not of assessment year 1998-99

Income tax - Interest earned on short term deposits and investments for a period of three months out of compulsion and business necessity as well as interest earned on ICDs and guarantees as guarantee fee is integral part of the business activity of appellant - Cannot be treated as income from other sources and is to be considered under the head business income – Earlier decision of Tribunal in appellant’s own case in favour of Revenue – Appeal not pressed by appellant – Summarily rejected as not pressed: DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-474-ITAT-DEL.pdf

ITO, New Delhi Vs M/s Mittal International (I) Pvt Ltd ( Dated : June 30, 2008 )

Income Tax Act – Additional Evidence before CIT(A) – Rule 46A – Held, Rule 46A makes it compulsory on the appellate authority who is admitting such additional evidences to record his reasons in writing for such admission. The nature of additional evidence including relevancy thereof alone cannot be ground enough to admit such additional evidence. It is the exceptional circumstances as envisaged by sub-rule (1) of rule 46 A that is to be the foundation for the admission of the additional evidence along with the relevancy thereof of the additional evidence. Sub-rule (3) of rule 46 A makes it compulsory for the appellate authority who has admitted the additional evidences under sub-rule (1) after recording his reasons in writing as per sub-rule (2) to grant the same to the Assessing Officer to examine the evidences or documents or to cross-examine the witness produced by the appellant or to produce any evidence or document or any witness in rebuttal of the additional evidence produced by the appellant. – Held further, that the provisions of rule 46 A does not specifically excluded the principles of natural justice – Also Held, that a plain reading of the provisions of the Rule 46 A and its sub-rules specifically show that natural justice is built into the provisions of the rules and more specifically sub-rule (3) of Rule 46A require that a reasonable opportunity must be granted to the Assessing Officer to consider the additional evidences which have been admitted by the Appellate Authority after recording the reasons in writing as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 46 A. : DELHI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1660-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Pioneer Embroideries Ltd Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: July 18, 2008)

Central Excise – 100% EOU – demand of duty based on the discrepancies in stock of inputs and embroidery needles – the appellant satisfactorily explained the shortages - also the plea of limitation is acceptable: CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1653-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CCE, Hyderabad Vs Ramachandra Rao (Dated: June 30, 2008)

Central Excise – Manufacture – Mere cutting to size, punching of holes and galvanizing MS angles, MS plates, channels does not amount to manufacture : BANGALORE CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1659-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Sayaji Hotels Ltd Vs CCE, Indore (Dated: August 6, 2008)

ST - Mandap Keepr Service - Assessee runs a hotel - hosts various functions at banquet halls - also supplies food and drinks to guests and raises separate bills - assessee claims benefit of Notification 12/2003 - Revenue says the assessee can avail benefits of only Notification No 21/97 which is applicable to it - demand raised and penalty imposed - Notification 21/97 was issued when the mandap keep service as taxable and outdoor catering service was not in tax net. The amendment prescribing the condition that they cannot avail the benefit of Notification 21/97 if availing Notification 12/2003 came much later and the assesse does satisfy the conditions for availing Notification No 12/2003 - Prima facie, the assessee makes a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit: CESTAT DELHI;

2008-TIOL-1658-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s R K Transport Vs CCE, Raipur (Dated: August 7, 2008)

ST - cargo handling service - Assessee enters into contract for activities like mining, sorting, breaking and stacking of ore - also transports ore from mines to certain destinations specified - Revenue raises demand and levies penalty - Transportation cannot be treated as part of mining activity despite there being a composite contract; since transportation service prior to 1.1.2005 was not taxable, demand for this period is not sustainable - waiver of pre-deposit granted for the other period: CESTAT DELHI;

2008-TIOL-1656-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + scn st story.pdf

Southern Iron & Steel Co Ltd Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: July 18, 2008)

It is not open to the Department to recover service tax from a person in pursuance of a show-cause notice addressed to another person.

For levy of service tax in this category, it must be shown that the service provider was a qualified engineer and that he provided, directly or indirectly, any advice, consultancy or technical assistance in any manner to the appellants in one or more disciplines of engineering. What was rendered by the foreign company was the service of supervising installation and commissioning of equipments constituting what is called 'Oxygen Plant'. It is not deniable that technical assistance was involved in such supervision of installation and commissioning of the Oxygen Plant. But this per se would not bring the service within the purview of 'consulting engineer's service'. For levy of service tax in this category, it must be shown that the service provider was a qualified engineer and that he provided, directly or indirectly, any advice, consultancy or technical assistance in any manner to the appellants in one or more disciplines of engineering. The Revenue is yet to establish the ingredients of this service in the present case. There is not even a mention of the discipline of engineering in which the foreign company rendered "consulting engineer's service" to the appellants. There is no claim by the Revenue that the foreign personnel who visited the appellant's factory site in India for supervising installation and commissioning of Oxygen Plant were professionally qualified engineers.

It is settled law that a service covered by the definition of a particular taxable service cannot be exigible to service tax under a different category of taxable service. In the present case, the transactions attracted "installation or commissioning" service defined under Section 65 (39) (a) of the Finance Act, 1994. This service was introduced for the first time on 1.7.2003, but the transactions in question happened long before. The demand of service tax under the pre-existing category of consulting engineer's service is unwarranted.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1655-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Karnik Maritime Pvt Ltd VsCCE, Mumbai-I (Dated: May 6, 2008)

Service tax - refund - since the refund claim was filed beyond the limitation period under Section 11 B, the same was rightly rejected.: MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft08not047.pdf

DGFT comes out with fresh guidelines for import of rough marbles; fixes ceiling of 40,000 MT for current year;

dgft08cir035.pdf

Guidelines for import of Rough / unprocessed Blocks and Slabs of agglomerated / artificial stones for the year 2008-09;

dgft08cir034.pdf

Guidelines for import of Rough / unprocessed Blocks and Slabs of agglomerated / artificial stones for the year 2008-09;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1657-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CC, New Delhi Vs M/s Polyglass Acrylic Mfg Co Pvt Ltd (Dated: July 2, 2008)

Customs - enhancement of declared value - Unlike the assessing officers who are dealing with the consignments waiting to be cleared, the Commissioner (Appeals) need not be in a hurry to deal with the appeal relating to the consignments already cleared and pass cryptic order - matter remanded to the original authority to pass speaking order: CESTAT DELHI;

2008-TIOL-1654-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CC, Jaipur Vs M/s Roshan Lal Lalit Mohan (Dated: July 21, 2008)

Customs – refund of interest – interest on interest for delayed refund of interest - Section 27A is applicable to delay in refund of Customs duty while the case pertains to the refund of interest wrongly charged by invoking under Section 47(2) – There are no provisions for payment of interest on interest – Commissioner (Appeals) order set aside. : DELHI CESTAT;