Debit from DEPB for Imports under EPCG - Revenue ignores Commerce promise (See 'DDT')

DGFT restores DEPB rates to those prevailing prior to Nov 5, 2008; DEPB Scheme extended upto Dec 31, 2009;

Transporters' strike all set to push up prices of essential commodities; Govt calls the strike unjustified;

Deora appeals to oil PSUs officers' associations to withdraw call for strike from Jan 7;

IRCTC to focus on good quality food for rail passengers;

New Year brings bonanzas for DRI; Huge quantity of ganja and heroin seized; 10 persons arrested;

ddt 5 Jan.pdf

Debit from DEPB for Imports under EPCG - Revenue ignores Commerce promise;

tiol spl guest.pdf

Eventful year 2008: Descending into the Precipice;

guest column.pdf

Leadership is - 'All about Learning Art of Kite Flying'!

mbuzz0013.pdf

Illegal car import case: Main accused Haren Choksey's remand extended till Jan 13, Family alleges harassment;

mbuzz0014.pdf

New Year brings bonanzas to DRI; Huge quantity of ganja & heroin seized;

mbuzz0015.pdf

IRCTC to focus on good quality food for rail passengers;

2009-TIOL-11-HC-RAJ-IT.pdf

CIT, Udaipur Vs M/s P I Industries Ltd (Dated : November 21, 2008 )

Income Tax - Sec 37(1) - AO and CIT(A) disallow assessee claims of expenditure, being the amount paid for the  approved Voluntary Retirement Scheme u/s 10(10C) - Tribunal allows full amount as expenditure - Held, in the light of Apex court and various High  courts decisions  the expenditure is allowable as revenue expenditure u/s 37(1) - Revenue's Appeal dismissed.: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-08-ITAT-MUM.pdf + merc story.pdf

DCIT, Mumbai Vs M/s E-Merck India Ltd (Dated: October 22, 2008)

Sales tax and excise duty excluded from the total turnover for the purpose of computation of deduction under section 80HHC :MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-07-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Epicenter Technologies Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Mumbai (Dated: November 20, 2008)

Income tax - assessee is into call centre business - makes payment to non-resident for technical knowhow - claims deprecition u/s 32 - AO disallows and CIT(A) agrees with the AO - Held, since intangible asset does not fall within the scope of the word 'knowhow' in Explanation 4 to Sec 32, issue remited to AO to examine whether such a claim of the assessee is covered under the expression 'any other business or commercial rights or similar nature' - Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) cannot be made to reject any claim u/s 32. Once the AO rejects the claim made u/s 32 again, the assessee will be free to make a fresh claim u/s 37 as revenue expenditure:MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-06-ITAT-BANG.pdf

M/s ANZ Operations & Technology Pvt Ltd Vs CIT, Bangalore (Dated: October 31, 2008)

Income tax - Sec 10A benefits - Assessee is into export of software exports - AO accepts return after scrutiny - Sec 263 invoked on the issue of non-deduction of telecommunication expenses from export turnover - held, it is a decided issue that the assessee needs to deduct telecommunication and telephone expenses attributable to export business from export turnover and also total turnover before claiming Sec 10A benefits - Assessee's appeal dismissed : BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-05-ITAT-MUM.pdf

ACIT ,Mumbai Vs M/s Seva Automotive Pvt Ltd (Dated: September 05, 2008)

Income Tax - Assessee writes off obsolete spare parts - loss - gets credit note from auto manufacturer - deduction claimed for reduced loss - AO says if this exercise was done on behalf of the manufacturer then the burden of loss is to be borne by them and disallows 50% of loss - CIT(A) deletes the disallowance on the ground that the AO disallowed merely on the basis of surmises - Held, the A.O. has rejected the claim of the assessee to the extent of 50% without bringing any material on record to justify the same because if he was to rely on the action of the auto manufacturer, then, total amount debited by the assessee in the P&L account, should have been disallowed - CIT(A) order upheld. :MUMBAI ITAT;

cbecorder001_2009.pdf

CBEC issues transfer order of seven Commissioners;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-12-HC-RAJ-CX.pdf + A K Spintex Ltd Story.pdf

UoI Vs M/s A K Spintex Ltd & Anr (Dated : November 26, 2008)

Central Excise – Assessable Value – Refund cannot be rejected merely because adjustments made through Credit/Debit Notes – it is clear that once the goods are supplied, the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, and seller becomes entitled to the price, and once the debit note is issued by the purchaser, and corresponding credit note is issued by the seller, the price of the goods stand reduced to the extent of debit note and credit note, meaning thereby, that after issuance of debit note and credit note, the price of goods charged by the seller, from the purchaser, is the price, initially billed, minus the amount of the debit note, and credit note, and therefore, when the debit notes and credit notes are issued and effected, which are not disputed, it cannot be assumed, that incidence of burden of excise duty has been passed on to the purchaser.

No floodgates: It is contended by the counsel for the revenue, that mechanism of issuance of debit note and credit note, if countenanced, it will open flood gates for pilferage of revenue. The High Court did not agree and observed, “Firstly, we do not agree with the preposition, that it can open flood gates, in as much as, where false, fictitious or shame Debit note and credit note are issued for adjustment, the revenue can very well lead evidence, or can lead evidence in rebuttal. Simply because the revenue fails, and is not able to rebut evidence, it cannot be assumed, that it will open flood gates for pilferage of the revenue. Difficulties may be on either side, but then, that cannot be considered as a ground for interpreting sec. 12-B, in the manner the revenue wants us to interpret it.” : RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-24-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Hindustan Unilever Ltd Vs CCE, Vapi (Dated: November 17, 2008)

Central Excise - CENVAT Credit - removal of inputs as such to sister units - duty payable is the amount equal to the credit taken - issue stand settled by the Larger Bench in case of M/s Eicher Tractors case. :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-23-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Cadila Healthcare Ltd Vs CCE & CC, Ahmedabad-II (Dated: November 19, 2008)

Central Excise Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - CENVAT credit - demand of 10% amount under Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - since the appellants availed only proportionate credit on that quantity of input which is used in the manufacture of dutiable goods, demand of 10% amount is not called for - pre-deposit waived. :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-22-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Balmer Lawrie & Co Ltd Vs CCE, Belapur (Dated: November 11, 2008)

Central Excise – Shortage of inputs during annual stock taking – No evidence on record by Revenue to suggest clandestine removal of inputs or finished goods – Pre-deposit waived and stay granted :MUMBAI CESTAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

NOTIFICATION

stnot09_001.pdf + mbuzz0016.pdf

Transporters' strike intensifies; Govt grants service tax exemption to many services provided to GTA by sub-contractors;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-27-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Ludhiana Vs M/s Star Cargo Consultant (Dated: November 5, 2008)

ST - Cargo Handling Service - assessee fails to pay tax on compensation it collects from contractors for not performing certain jobs - Revenue demands tax - assessee pays tax with interest - penalty imposed - assessee seeks invocation of Sec 80 for waiver of penalty - Matter remanded to Commissioner(A) to see whether the facts make the assesse eligible for waiver of penalty :DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-26-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Bhopal Vs M/s Crompton Greaves Ltd (Dated: November 24, 2008)

ST - assessee pays royalty to non-resident company for transfer of technology - No service tax payable as settled by the Larger Bench in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd:DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-25-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Steelcast Ltd Vs CCE, Bhavnagar (Dated: December 12, 2008)

ST - Management Consultancy Service - assessee is a manufacturer of casting iron and casting articles - provides certain management consultancy services to its clients for improvement of equipment - claims their services are covered under 'Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services' which was notified later - held, going by the details of the services mentioned in the invoice raised to the customers, it is clear that it was not Scientific service which can be provided only by a Scientist or a technocrat - assessee has provided such services only out of its experience and is very much management consultancy service - however, demand is partly time-barred and the Revenue cannot invoke larger period as the facts were disclosed by the assessee in their balance-sheets and annual statements - Revenue directed to requantify demand and penalty :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

ctariff09_003.pdf

Customs tariff 89/2005 amended to substitute DEPB as DEPB scrip;

dgft08pn125.pdf

DEPB Scheme extended upto December 31, 2009;

dgft08pn124.pdf

DEPB rates restored to those prevailing before Nov 5, 2008;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-28-CESTAT-AHM.pdf + Reliance Petroleum Ltd Ahd story.pdf

M/s Reliance Petroleum Ltd Vs CCE , Rajkot (Dated: December 5, 2008)

Customs – SEZ – Imported goods – short receipt in the SEZ – shortage within tolerable limits and goods not easily removable – demand of duty not sustainable - We have to keep in the mind the nature of the goods which are weldable debars incapable of being taken out, import, without disturbing the number. It is not a liquid cargo where it may be possible to take out a portion of the same, thus, reducing the weight of the entire cargo. When the numbers of the debars are taling , the minor variation in the weight which in any case stand fully explained by the importer, will not lead to the fact that the entire consignment has not reached the appellants factory. Appellants have produced on record, the technical literature of the bars by British Standard wherein the weight of the individual bars are given subject to tolerance limit. The tolerance limit of the bar of 12 mm and over shows the same to be ± 4.5. The variation in the present consignment is within the same tolerance limit. We also note that the entire operation was monitored by the surveyor and no discrepancy was found by him. As such, we find no reason to hold that the goods were less received by the appellant holding it liable to pay the duty especially when the is no dispute about the number of bundles received by the appellant and keeping in view the nature of the goods being solid bars, making it impractical for the assessee to remove a part of the same.:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;