High Court Summons Governor - No Deviation for Tiwari (See 'DDT')

India to emerge as food factory of world: Minister;

Sahar Airport Customs seizes gold chains worth Rs 11 lakh from pax coming from Dubai ;

India's growing global influence and US support to N-deal make China feel uneasy, say experts;

US Treasury decides to inject another dose of USD 800 bn into financial markets;

Suspect of Mumbai 2006 serial blasts in trains detained at London airport on Interpol alert ;

Air India withdraws transaction fee on tickets booked for Europe & USA;

ddt 26 nov.pdf

Goods Imported for use of SPG - Exemption;

spl down.pdf

Shadow of income tax on stock brokers!

RBI Notifi for Processing fees Charges.pdf

RBI directs banks / FIs to disclose all processing fees on loan applications to customers;

mbuzz1203.pdf

India to emerge as food factory of world: Minister;

mbuzz1202.pdf

Dealing in fake viagra becomes fashion in smuggling syndicates; French Customs seizes rich haul;

mbuzz1201.pdf

Steep rise in unemployment: OECD countries feel pangs of recession ;

2008-TIOL-580-HC-MUM-IT.pdf + mum it story.pdf

Gal Offshore Service Ltd Vs CIT, Mumbai ( Dated: November 17, 2008 )

Income tax - assessee is registered in India as a shipping company - AY 1994-95 - assessee claims deduction u/s 33AC on the ground of its engagement in shipping business - AO disallows as there was no income from the actual shipping operations of the assessee in the year of the claim - CIT(A) and Tribunal agree with the Revenue that the income should be from the actual operations of the shipping - Held, going by the statute as it is worded, there is no requirement of profits being generated out of actual business of shipping operations. Had it been the case there was no need to amend the Section vide Finance Act, 1995 and restrict the benefits to 50% of profits arising from only shipping business

As per the Board Circular, the amendment is not clarificatory or retrospective as it clearly stipulates the effective date of its operation as April 1, 1976 - Assessee's appeal allowed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-579-HC-MUM-IT.pdf + delay story.pdf

M/s Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs ACIT, Mumbai ( Dated: November 14, 2008 )

Delay in passing order after hearing – Disturbing state of affairs in ITAT – President directed to issue guidelines – All IT appellate Authorities to pass orders within three months of hearing. We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal in that behalf. We hope and trust that suitable guidelines shall be framed and issued by the President of the Appellate Tribunal within shortest reasonable time and followed strictly by all the benches of the Tribunal. In the meanwhile, all the revisional and appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act are directed to decide matters heard by them within a period of three months from the date case is closed for judgment.

Need to Give Reasons: It is needless to mention that the Appellate Authority being the final authority of facts, it is incumbent upon it to appreciate the evidence, consider the reasons of the authorities below and assign its own reasons as to why he disagrees with the reasons and findings of the authority below. Merely because Tribunal happened to be an Appellate Authority, it does not get right to brush aside reasons or findings recorded by the First Authority or the Lower Appellate Authority. It has to examine validity of the reasons given and findings recorded. Mere recording that the conclusions arrived at did not require discussion of the case law and other propositions of law is no consideration. Merely by saying that the findings of C.I.T . ( A) are just, fair and in accordance with the law can hardly tantamount to giving reasons. The absence of reasons has rendered the impugned order of the Tribunal unsustainable. The reasons introduce clarity in an order.The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. The importance of reasoned order cannot be overlooked by any Court much less by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. : BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-578-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

CIT, Delhi-II Vs Jindal Vegetables Products Ltd ( Dated: November 6, 2008 )

Income tax - assessee claims 100% depreciation on certain machinery items - AO gets the details verified by the supplier who denies supplying machinery against various bills furnished - AO makes additions - CIT(A) and Tribunal examine facts and find that the supplier's statements are contradictory and unreliable and then the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the supplier - Held, no question of perversity in findings of fact - Revenue's appeal dismissed : DELHI HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-583-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s CJ International Hotels Limited Vs ITO, New Delhi (Dated : October 24, 2008)

Income Tax Act – Section 147 – Reopening of assessment on item “X” but ultimately re-assessment order framed on item “Y” for which reasons were not recorded and which came to the knowledge of AO during the course of reassessment proceedings – Held, reassessment bad in law even though AO had genuine reason to believe vis a vis item “X”.

Income Tax Act – Section 147 – Held, reopening of assessment cannot be made on a mere change of opinion. :DELHI ITAT;

2008-TIOL-582-ITAT-MUM.pdf

DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Blue Skies Pvt Ltd (Dated : September 08, 2008)

Income tax – In the assessment passed u/s 143(3), AO computed the total income at Rs. 1,21,726/- as per the computation u/s 115JB – Later on AO passed an order u/s 154 and considered a sum of Rs. 1.1 crore on account of surrender of tenancy right as a part of book profit – Assessee filed an appeal before CIT (A) which was allowed on the ground that the AO cannot rectify an assessment order u/s 154 on the issue which is debatable – Assessee submits that the amount of Rs. 1.1 crore is never debited in profit and loss account and directly shown in capital reserve account of Balance Sheet and therefore AO wrongly made adjustments in book profit and passed order u/s 154.

Held that provision of section 115JB provides for a condition that the list of items mentioned in clauses (a) to (h) of the Explanation 1 can only be added to the book profits only on the condition that the said amounts should be first debited to the profit and loss account, which is not the fact in the instant case and therefore, AO has erred in assuming the jurisdiction :MUMBAI ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2008-TIOL-1930-CESTAT-MUM.pdf +scn story.pdf

CCE, Belapur Vs M/s Lubrizol (India) Ltd (Dated: October 21, 2008)

When Show Cause notice alleging suppression of facts was issued in the year 2000 there was no way that a certificate under rule 57E could be denied in the year 1998 – Tribunal rejects Revenue appeal.

Tribunal's observations -

The appeal filed by the Revenue makes a positive statement that neither the three show cause notices nor order-in-original alleges any suppression of facts or mis-declaration, as they came to know of the suppression only when the Cost Audit report was received.

While the order-in-original was issued in 1998, the allegations of suppression were made in the show cause notice issued in the year 2000.

It is not understandable as to how a certificate under Rule 57E can be denied in 1998, when the show cause notice against which duty payment was made never alleged suppression of facts and such allegations have been made for the first time in the show cause notice issued in the year 2000.  Clearly, such order is not maintainable. 

Revenue appeal rejected as being without merits. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1929-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Maruti Suzuki Ltd Vs CCE, Delhi (Dated: October 10, 2008)

Central Excise – Valuation - Charges towards pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-services received by dealers from buyers to be included or not included in the assessable value – Matter goes to Larger Bench : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1928-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Goldstone Teleservices Limited Vs CCE, Hyderabad (Dated: July 28, 2008)

Central Excise – Refund of interest – Claim of the assessee to refund interest @ 24% instead of the prevailing rate of 15% upheld by Tribunal – Tribunal's order approved by AP High Court – Commissioner cannot re-adjudicate the matter by refunding interest @ 15% - Impugned order set aside: BANGALORE CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-1935-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + stt story.pdf

Eveready Industries India Ltd Vs CCE, Belapur (Dated: September 30, 2008)

Distribution of Cenvat Credit of Input Services and Advertisement services by Input Service Distributor to unit engaged in the manufacture of goods which are captively consumed by other establishments – Tribunal grants waiver of pre-deposit and remands matter to Commissioner(Appeals).

Cenvat of Rs.13,16,270/- and penalties imposed on Turbhe unit for availing credit on the ground that Input stage service tax credit distributed by Head Office to Turbhe unit is manufacturing electrolytic manganese dioxide (EMD), which is not final product , but is captively used, for the manufacture of Eveready batteries at other locations. 

Strong prima facie case for waiver has been made out by the applicants on the ground of revenue neutrality and even if the credit has been wrongly availed by the Turbhe unit, the credit was required to be restored to the appellants for distribution among the units where input services were rendered, and thus there would be no revenue implication. Order S/470-473/2007-C-I(EB) dated 11.7.2007 granting unconditional stay in similar matter in Lupin Ltd. and others , [ 2007-TIOL-1710-CESTAT-MUM ] relied upon.

As the Commissioner(A) had dismissed the appeals on the ground of non-compliance of the order to pre-deposit the amounts involved, the Tribunal remands the matter to the Commissioner(A) to pass an order on merits after giving an opportunity of personal hearing and without insisting on any pre-deposit. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1934-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Handiman Services Ltd Vs CST, Bangalore (Dated: July 28, 2008)

Service Tax – Tax paid under amnesty scheme – Once the Original Authority has examined the grounds and found it not fit to impose penalty Commissioner cannot revise it – Impugned order imposing penalty set aside : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1933-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Indore Vs Smt Sona Sharma (Dated: September 17, 2008)

ST - Rent-a-Cab services - assessee provides services to a company - Revenue writes to the assessee to take registration and pay tax - assessee ignores the communication - Demand raised with interest and penalty imposed - assessee does not appear even before adjudicating authority - since the assessee wilfully evaded tax, it is a fit case for levying penalty u/s 78 and if tax is deposited within 30 days, only 25% penalty is leviable : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt08_130.pdf

Customs Exchange rate for imports goods & export goods for December;

CASE LAWS

2008-TIOL-1932-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CC, Chennai Vs M/s PSG Hospitals (Dated: September 4, 2008)

Customs – refund – unjust enrichment - the goods involved are capital goods or that they are captively consumed does not alter the requirement of establishing that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the customers - The apex Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd case observed that the assessee in the normal course would pass on the duty incurred by it to its customers – matter remanded to decide the issue of unjust enrichment. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-1931-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: September 23, 2008)

Customs – classification – 48F Optical Fibre Cables – whether classifiable under CTH 85447090 or 90011000 – placing reliance on the decision of Authority of Advance Ruling in another importer's case by the Commissioner is against the provisions of Section 28 J of the Customs Act – the dispute involves meticulous interpretation of the Tariff entries coupled with the basic question of fact as to whether the cables in question were made up of individually sheathed fibres- matter remanded. : CHENNAI CESTAT;