CustoSecond Stimulus Package is out: DEPB Scheme extended upto December 31, 2009;

Govt decides to restore DEPB rates to those prevailing in November 2008;

Govt withdraws exemption from CVD on TMT bars & structurals; Exemption from CVD and Special CVD on Cement also removed; Full exemption from BCD on zinc and ferro alloys stands revoked (NOTIFICATIONS ATTACHED);

Income tax benefits: 50% accelerated depreciation to be allowed for commercial vehicles to be purchased on or after 1.1.2009 upto 31.03.2009;

Duty Drawback benefits on items like fabrics, cycles, agri hand tools and certain types of yarn being hiked w.e.f September 1, 2008 (NOTIFICATIONS ATTACHED);

Corporate Bond Market: FII investment limit in rupee bond hiked from USD 6 bn to USD 15 bn;

RBI further cuts report and reverse report rates by 100 basis points; reduces CRR by 50 basis point;

Exports-related procedural issues: Finance Secretary to head panel; other Members are Secy, MoC and Secy, Revenue;

ECB guidelines further eased; 'all-in-cost' ceilings to be removed; Development of Integrated Townships to be eligible end-use for ECB;

Govt says no more stimulus package this fiscal now;

CCEA okays Papsico proposal for FDI investment of Rs 250 Cr + Grape Processing Board;

Railways launches 'Mobile Vigilance'; If a pax has a complaint of corruption, call 24x7 Helpline No 155210 for quick action;

Justice Suresh Chandra Sinho, Additional Judge of MP High Court, to be full-time Judge now;

ddt 2 Jan.pdf

CBEC New Year Gift to SEZ Developers and/or Domestic Suppliers;

second stimulus package story 1.pdf + repo_rate_cut.pdf

Second Stimulus Package extends DEPB Scheme; gives drawback benefits to many items; Exemption from CVD on TMT bars removed; withdraws exemption from BCD on zinc and ferro alloys; hikes depreciation to 50% on commercial vehicles;

second stimulus package story 2.pdf

Zinc to attract 5% Customs duty; TMT bars 10%; Cement Spl CVD of 4% and equal to excise duty; Drawback rates hiked for cotton and woollen knitted fabrics;

editorial.pdf

Exports goes down by 10% in Nov; needs 'real stimulus' from Package in offing;

somesh tiwari story.pdf + 2009-TIOL-02-SC-SERVICE.pdf

Somesh Tiwari Vs Union of India (Dated: December 16, 2008)

IRS officer's transfer order passed on material which was not existent -suffers from total non application of mind and from malice in law.- wholly unwarranted and reprehensible conduct on the part of the authorities – absence of officer to be treated as leave and costs awarded: No vigilance enquiry was initiated against him. The order of transfer was passed on material which was not existent. The order, therefore, not only suffers from total non application of mind on the part of authorities but also suffers from malice in law.: keeping in view the fact, that on the one hand the appellant did not join his posting at Ahmedabad, although no order of stay was passed and on the other wholly unwarranted and reprehensible conduct on the part of the authorities, interest of justice would be subserved if during the period from 28th December, 2005 till his joining his post at Bhopal, the appellant is treated to be on leave and the respondents are directed to pass an appropriate order invoking the leave rules applicable in this behalf.:SUPREME COURT ;

ACC Appointments.pdf

Govt issues addl charge order at Secretary-level;

rbi08cir045.pdf

Deferred Payment Protocols dated April 30, 1981 and December 23, 1985 between Government of India and erstwhile USSR ;

mbuzz0008.pdf

RBI reduces CRR by 50 basis points to inject addl liquidity of Rs 20,000 Cr in system;

mbuzz0007.pdf

CCEA okays Papsico proposal for FDI investment of Rs 250 Cr;

mbuzz0006.pdf

Cabinet gives nod for Grape Processing Board;

mbuzz0005.pdf

CCEA nod to National Mission on Education through IT;

mbuzz0004.pdf

CCEA approves hike in royalty for uranium;

mbuzz0003.pdf

2008: A glorious year for Indian Space Mission;

2009-TIOL-09-HC-DEL-IT.pdf + depreciation story.pdf

CIT, New Delhi Vs Sain Processing And Weaving Mills (P) Ltd (Dated : December 17, 2008)

Assessee is entitled to seek deduction of current year depreciation from net profit to arrive at the book profit even though it is not charged to the profit and loss account, though disclosed in the notes appended to the accounts. ‘book profit' means net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant previous year, prepared under sub-section ( 1A ) of Section 115J of the Act. Sub-section ( 1A ) imposes an obligation on every assessee to prepare its profit and loss account for the relevant previous year in accordance of provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, 1956.

Whether notes to accounts form part of the accounts , and whether the fact that the current year depreciation which has not been debited to the profit and loss account would in any way deprive the assessee of its claim for the deduction from the ‘net profit' in arriving at the figure of ‘book profit' for the purposes of Section 115J of the Act. The answer to this poser is found in sub-section (6) of Section 211 of the Companies Act, which provides that except where the context otherwise requires any reference to a balance sheet or profit and loss account shall include the notes thereon or documents annexed thereto, giving information required to be given and/or allowed to be given in the form of notes or documents by the Companies Act. The High Court held that, once this information is disclosed in the notes to the account it would clearly fall within the ambit of the explanation to Section 115J of the Act which defines book profit to mean net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant assessment year:DELHI HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-08-HC-P&H-IT.pdf

CIT, Patiala Vs Shri Hazari Lal (Dated : December 12, 2008)

Income tax - Search u/s 132 - Block assessment - Revenue makes additions on the basis of entries found in a diary and deciphering the entries as payments received or investments made - also makes addition for expenses incurred on modification of house on the basis of a drawing found during the search - Tribunal holds since the AO had no additional evidence to make such inferences and the assessee giving his own explanation, additions cannot be justified - No substantial question of law involved : PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-07-HC-P&H-IT.pdf

CIT, Amritsar Vs M/s Partap Steel Rolling Mills (ASR.) P Ltd (Dated : December 17, 2008)

Income tax - interest u/s 216 - AO issues notice for advance tax - assessee first declares NIL payment of advance tax and subsequently estimates advance tax at lower figure - CIT(A) agrees with the AO - Tribunal disagrees - held, since no justification whatsoever was shown by the assessee for first declaring nil estimates and then revising the same to a lower figure than the actual advance tax due, Tribunal order is not sustainable - Revenue's appeal allowed:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-02-ITAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Mphasis Ltd Vs ACIT, Bangalore (November 07, 2008)

Income tax - Sec 10B benefits - assessee is into exports of software - incures expenses on telecommunication and staff deputed abroad for providing technical services - AO excludes such expenses from export turnover but declines to do so from total turnover - held, issues are no longer res integra - such expenses are to be excluded from export turnover and also total turnover : BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-01-ITAT-HYD.pdf

GMR Projects Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Hyderabad (September 26, 2008)

Income tax - credit for TDS - assessee's return assessed, followed by reassessment u/s 147 - AO alleges excessive relief in terms of TDS credit claimed on income receipts - Held, since the income on which tax is computed remains unaltered in reassessment, the proceedings initiated by the AO u/s 147 are bad in law - Assessee's appeal allowed:HYDERABAD ITAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-10-HC-MUM-CX.pdf + merger story.pdf

CCE, Mumbai-II Vs M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg (Dated : December 17, 2008 )

Appeal - Department's appeal in a case where party's appeal already decided – Doctrine of Merger not applicable if the issues are different: The following principles will have to be considered while applying the doctrine of merger in the context of the provisions of "The Central Excise Act, 1944'.

1. In the proceedings from which the matter arises, the Court or Tribunal hearing the appeal or revision, should have jurisdiction to decide all issues arising from the said order of the inferior Court or Tribunal from whose order the proceedings arise.

2. The Appeal should not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation or failure to deposit as ordered. The Appeal should have been heard and decided on merits on the issues raised and or could have been raised including by the Respondent. In such an event the doctrine of merger would apply.

3. If the proceedings are pending before the same Appellate Tribunal the power under Section 35E can still be exercised by the Competent Authority. The doctrine of merger will not apply even if one of the Appeals is dismissed, provided the other appeal is pending.

4. Even if the Appeal preferred under Section 35B has been disposed of, an appeal can still be preferred pursuant to direction issued under Section 35E , if in the appeal disposed off, the entire order was not the subject matter of the Appeal.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-14-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Mafatlal Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Daman (Dated: October 3, 2008)

Central Excise - Where the duty paid in one unit is available as credit to other unit of the same assessee, the entire issue is Revenue neutral and the demand should not be confirmed: that if the appellants would have paid higher duty by adopting higher assessable value at the time of clearance of the fabrics, their unit situated at Nadiar would have taken credit of the same. It is not a case where the goods are being sold by one assessee to another. It is basically taking out money from one pocket and putting the same in other pocket of same trouser. The other unit at Nadiar was appellant's own unit and it was only for the procedural and technical purposes that the duty was required to be paid at the time of clearance from the assessee's unit. Tribunal, in number of cases, has held that where the duty paid in one unit is available as credit to other unit of the same assessee, the entire issue is Revenue neutral and the demand should not be confirmed on the said count.:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-13-CESTAT-KOL.pdf

M/s New Tobacco Co Ltd Vs CCE, Shillong (Dated: September 24, 2008)

Central Excise – When retrospective invalidation of exemption notification 32/99 by Finance Act, 2003 upheld by Apex Court denial of refund of duty paid in PLA valid – Initiation of proceedings against appellant justified and demand of interest in terms of Section 154(4) of Finance Act, 2003 justified:KOLKATA CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-07-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Jupiter Remedies Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Vapi (Dated: October 10, 2008)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit - credit cannot be varied at recipient's end on the ground that the supplier should have paid lesser duty:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-11-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Jitendra Nath & Sons Vs CCE, Kanpur (Dated: November 19, 2008)

Appellant, a selling agent of M/s Raymond Ltd. procured the orders from the dealers/sub-dealers and conveys the same to Raymond who in turn directly dispatch the goods to dealers under invoice of Raymond – Appellant neither receiving the goods nor arranging the storage/warehousing of the goods – Appellant is getting the commission thereon – Services not of a clearing & forwarding agency so as to be charged to Service Tax.

LB decision in Larsen & Toubro Ltd 2006-TIOL-814-CESTAT-DEL-LB over-ruling Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. ( 2002-TIOL-232-CESTAT-KOL ) relied upon.: DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-10-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Meditech Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Delhi (Dated: November 11, 2008)

Service tax - Refund – Appellant's contention that invoices indicate composite price and therefore the same has no bearing in respect of payment of tax is untenable as S. 12 A of CEA, 1944 made applicable to Service Tax matters requires that appellant produce evidence in the nature of books of accounts or certificate to show that incidence of tax had not been passed to the customers – Appeal rejected .: DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-09-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Bhopal Vs M/s New Nagpur Drycleaners (Dated: November 19, 2008)

Service Tax – Words ‘wet cleaning' not mentioned in duplicate copy of invoice - Appellants were clearly putting stamp of ‘wet cleaning' on customer's copy of invoices, therefore, charge for wet cleaning cannot be added while assessing the value of dry cleaning service – Revenue appeal rejected.: DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-08-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Prena Syntex Vs CCE, Jaipur (Dated: November 10, 2008)

Service Tax – GTO – s.71A insertion by Finance Act, 2003 - Interest payable from 29.11.2003 till date of payment of Service Tax. Tribunal decision in Unikeller India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I ( 2006-TIOL-1526-CESTAT-DEL ) followed.

Service Tax - Goods Transport Operators - By inserting Section 71 A, the Finance Act, 2003 made the service receivers to file return to the authorities to ascertain the service tax liability and also granted time of six months from the date of assent of the bill by the President - Finance Bill 2003 received the assent of the President on 16.5.2003 and hence the service receivers were required to file the returns by 17.11.2003 and discharge their service tax liability - Interest payable from 29.11.2003 till date of payment of Service Tax. Tribunal decision in Unikeller India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I ( 2006-TIOL-1526-CESTAT-DEL ) followed.

No penalty – Appeal disposed of.: DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt09_002.pdf

Drawback rates hiked for polyester texturised / twisted yarn, wool and cotton fibre and agri tools;

cnt09_001.pdf

Drawback rates amended for boots, shoes of leather cum synthetic / textile materials;

ctariff09_001.pdf

Anti-dumping duty on NBR to continue for import from Korea; Import from Germany not to attract anti-dumping;

ctariff09_002.pdf

Exemption from CVD on TMT, Cement withdrawn; Exemption from BCD on Zinc and alloys reovked;

dgft08not074.pdf

DGFT amends Import Licensing Note for import of new vehicles + designated ports for the same;

dgft08pn123.pdf

List of EPCs: Sl No 11 related to EEPC India stands amended;

dgft08pn122.pdf

Exim Club in Vadodara notified for issue of Certificate of origin;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-12-CESTAT-BANG .pdf

M/s Bosch Limited Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: July 4, 2008)

Customs – Import of second hand machineries - It is settled law that unless transaction value is rejected for extraordinary or special reasons, the same has to be accepted – Apex Court 's decision in Eicher Tractors Ltd [2002-TIOL-06-SC-CUS] followed – Impugned order set aside :BANGALORE CESTAT;