Reaction to Economy Stimulus Package: Too Little Too Late!, says former CBEC Member (See 'Common Basket')

Dear PM, indirect tax sops are fine but what about three-month income tax holiday for all to soar up demand!(See 'Common Basket')

Money Laundering: Let law be 'laundered' first! (See 'Common Basket');

Govt appoints Addl Judge Justice Veena Birbal as full-time Judge of Delhi HC;

Liquidity Adjustment Facility – Repo and Reverse Repo Rates;

Water cess: Centre fails to pay up States's share of revenue;

BJP manages in MP and Chhatisgarh; Congress retains Delhi and wins back Rajasthan;

Economic Stimulus package to ensure 7% growth this fiscal: Montek;

ddt 8 dec.pdf

Mega Budget in December;

editorial.pdf

Dear PM, indirect tax sops are fine but what about three-month income tax holiday for all to soar up demand!

guest.pdf

Money Laundering: Let law be 'laundered' first!

article.pdf

Too Little Too Late By former CBEC Member;

RBI Notifi For Repo and Reverse Repo Rates.pdf

Liquidity Adjustment Facility – Repo and Reverse Repo Rates;

deputation.pdf

CBEC looking for Under Secretarie;

mbuzz1234.pdf

Water cess: Centre fails to pay up States's share of revenue;

2008-TIOL-610-HC-DEL-IT.pdf + 80 hhc story.pdf

CIT-X, Delhi Vs M/s Ahuja Radios (Dated: October 20, 2008 )

MODVAT credit has not to be included in the total turnover for the purposes of computing the eligible deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.: excise duty is not to be included in computing total turnover for the purposes of Section 80HHC . The modvat credit availed and adjusted against the duty payable by the assessee, is nothing but excise duty in itself through another duty collecting procedure; such modvat credit cannot be included in the total turnover for the purposes of computing the eligible deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act. Just as excise duty does not involve any element of turnover (as held by the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Machine Works), modvat credit also does not involve any such element of turnover. : DELHI HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-608-HC-AHM-IT.pdf

Roshanlal S Jain & Others (A O P) Vs DCIT (Assessment) (Dated: September 23, 2008 )

Income Tax - Assessee, AOP, files return after the due date and defaults to pay advance tax as mandated by the statute - AO charges interest under ss 234A, 234B and 234C - Assessee challenged the ss 234A and 234B being arbitrary, ultravires and overlapping - Held, Sec 234A deals with interest on default in filing of return of income beyond the prescribed date and amount paid beyond the Financial Year cannot be deducted from the tax on the total income for calculating interest u/s 234A; Sec 234B deals with payment of interest for defaults in payment of advance tax and petitioner cannot seek credit for the amounts paid beyond the Financial Year; Both the provisions are independent and cannot be equated - Claim of the assessee to adjust the amount paid first against Income Tax payable and not against the interest was rejected on the ground that explanation under sub-section (1) of section 140A of IT Act provides that the amount so paid shall first be adjusted towards the interest payable and then towards the tax payable - Petition accordingly rejected. : GUJARAT HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-607-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

CIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Dewan Chand (Dated: November 17, 2008 )

Income tax - TDS - issue relates to TDS in relation to payments made to persons who have already paid tax on the said receipts - AO puts on the onus of proof of payment on the assessee - declares assessee in default for not submitting evidence - CIT(A) and Tribunal find that the assessee had filed confirmation from the deductees and submitted their PAN and acknowledgement of returns - CIT(A) categorically held that in absence of any contrary evidence, the assessee can be treated as having discharged the onus - Held, no error in Tribunal's decision

Revenue presses for interest which was not considered by the Tribunal - Since the payments were made to labourers hired on daily wages and not on contract, no TDS is to be deducted on such payments - No question of law involved - Revenue's appeal dismissed : DELHI HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-606-HC-RAJ-IT.pdf

CIT, Ajmer Vs M/s Unique Precured Retraders (Dated: September 12, 2008 )

Income tax - Findings recorded by Tribunal or authorities below on the question of imposition of penalty is essentially a finding of fact – Unless the findings are perverse or vitiated on other counts no reason for High Court to interfere : RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-605-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

DIT (Exemption) Vs Span Foundation (Dated: November 4, 2008 )

Income tax - assessee is a charitable trust - purchases a plot of land and constructs building out of borrowed funds - rents out the premises and re-pays the loan out of rental income - AO and CIT(A) denies exemption under ss 11 and 12 for violation of Sec 13(1)(c) read with Sec 13(3) as the property constructed was rented out to Directors of the Trust - Tribunal allows the appeal by holding that the rental income utilised for repayment of loan is to be treated as application of income for charitable purposes - Held, since the rent collected was more than the standard rent as per the Rent Control Act, the question of any benefit being derived by an interested person does not arise - Revenue's appeal dismissed : DELHI HIGH COURT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

NOTIFICATIONS

exnt08_48.pdf

CENVAT Credit on goods procured from EOUs - Credit doubled - Formula changed;

etariff08_57.pdf

Bura, makhana, mishri, hardas or battasa exempted from excise duty – they are Refined Sugar;

CASE LAW

2008-TIOL-609-HC-DEL-CX.pdf

M/s Gem Footwear Vs CCE, Delhi -I (Dated: November 18, 2008 )

Central Excise – Assignment of trademark by way of gift deed does not require compulsory registration and trademark registration not required for availing SSI exemption – Matter remitted to Settlement Commission to ascertain the genuineness of the gift deed and provide conclusive findings : DELHI HIGH COURT;

2008-TIOL-2005-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s The India Cements Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: September 25, 2008)

Central Excise – demand of duty on cement cleared to Industrial / Institutional buyers – Since the Board circular issued on 12.6.2008 on this issue was not available at the time of adjudication, matter remanded.: CHENNAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-2004-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Standard Electricals Limited Vs CCE, Jalandhar (Dated: October 23, 2008)

Central Excise - refund - unjust enrichment - the direction of the Department to produce cash book and ledgers at a distant date may not be practicable - matter remanded to examine the other documents filed by the appellant to examine the aspect of unjust enrichment. : DELHI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-2003-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Amrutanjan Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: August 28, 2008)

Central Excise – refund – unjust enrichment - bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to a refund claim arising out of finalization of provisional assessment for a period prior to the amendment to Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. : CHENNAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2008-TIOL-2007-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + staff college story.pdf

M/s Administrative Staff College Of India Vs CC & CCE, Hyderabad (Dated: August 11, 2008)

Service tax – Commercial coaching or training service – ASCI being a society registered under Societies Registration Act and exempted from IT not a commercial coaching or training centre – In the statutory definition “commercial” qualifies “coaching or training centre” and not “coaching or training” – CBEC clarification that service tax leviable as long as consideration is charged even if organization is charitable or non-profit and exempted from IT not agreed with

Scientific or Technical consultancy service – Research activity undertaken in the field of social sciences cannot be regarded as scientific or technical consultancy

ASCI is a well known institution and also registered for Management consultancy service – Bonafide belief that activities undertaken not liable to tax under ‘commercial coaching or training service' and ‘scientific or technical consultancy service' – No justification to invoke longer period – Impugned order set aside : BANGALORE CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-2002-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Alembic Ltd Vs CCE & CC, Vadodara-I (Dated: November 4, 2008)

ST - Consulting Engineer Service - Recipient of serice prior to 1.1.05 is not liable to service tax : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-2001-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Invincible Security Services & Others Vs CCE, Noida (Dated: September 25, 2008)

ST - Security Service - assessee provides service to M/s BSNL - PSU telecom company pays tax with interest on the services received - Revenue argues the laibility of the assessee cannot be discharged by the BSNL - Held, the fact that the tax was paid by the service recipient which is also registered with the Revenue and the same was accepted, the demand is not sustainable : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATIONS

dgft08pn112.pdf

Export of sandalwood chips: Amendment related to physical verification reprot from DFO;

CASE LAW

2008-TIOL-2006-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + mould story.pdf

M/s Rehau Polymers Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: November 14, 2008)

Extrusion dies are not Moulds [8480 79 00] and are correctly classifiable under heading 8477 90 00 – Benefit of notification 85/2004-Cus not available – Tribunal.

Tribunal's observations –

Moulds and dies are not synonymous.

The appellants have placed their claim solely on the ground that moulds and dies are synonymous and in support thereof have relied on HSN Explanatory Notes which excludes only stamping die from its purview.

We are unable to agree with this proposition as this explanatory note says that the essential function of the mould is to retain the material in a pre-determined shape while it sets and this function evidently is not performed by die which only imparts a uniform cross-section.

Tribunal's decision in Alok Leasing P. Ltd. relied upon.

Appeal dismissed .: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2008-TIOL-2000-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CC, Chennai Vs Biomed Hi-Tech Industries Ltd (Dated: September 30, 2008)

Customs – appeal against the order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs is not appealable to the Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act - for the purposes of Chapter XV, “Commissioner of Customs” means only “Commissioner of Customs”. : CHENNAI CESTAT;