Recession: India's most dubious import since Independence (See 'Common Basket')

Cab Secy reviews maritime security; discusses issue related to two-types of ID cards for fishermen and people in coastal villages;

RBI notifies trigger limit of 18% of SBI paid up capital for share-holding by FIIs, NRIs and PIOs;

Century-long war against drugs brings problem 'under control' but fight goes on: UN;

Fiscal crisis an opportunity to fight corruption, says Head of UN Business Alliance;

Indian IT industry to be impacted more by economic meltdown: PM's special envoy Shyam Sharan;

2008 saw destruction of 10000 anti-vehicle and 1.9 lakh anti-personnel mines: UN;

Interpol pact with Forensic Tech Inc to help cross-border exchange of ballistic data;

TIOL COMMENTARY

spl down.pdf

Recession: India's most dubious import since Independence;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0228.pdf

Cab Secy reviews maritime security; discusses issue related to two-types of ID cards for fishermen and people in coastal villages;

mbuzz0229.pdf

Interpol pact with Forensic Tech Inc to help cross-border exchange of ballistic data;

mbuzz0230.pdf

2008 saw destruction of 10000 anti-vehicle and 1.9 lakh anti-personnel mines: UN;

mbuzz0231.pdf

Fiscal crisis an opportunity to fight corruption, says Head of UN Business Alliance;

mbuzz0232.pdf

Century-long war against drugs brings problem 'under control' but fight goes on: UN;

2009-TIOL-101-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

Dev Kumar Jain Vs ITO (Dated: January 19, 2009)

Income tax - capital gains - assessee sells property and declares capital gains - AO refers the case to valuation officer for finding out 'fair market value' u/s 55A - On receipt of the valuation report the AO raises fresh demand - held, capital gains are to be computed as per provisions of Sec 45 to 48 and tax is to be paid on 'full value of the consideration' minus cost of acquisition, cost of improvement and other costs. 'Full value of consideration' and 'fair market value' u/s 55A are two different concepts and the AO cannot substitute full value of consideration by 'fair market value' on his own - Assessee's appeal allowed:DELHI HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-132-ITAT-MUM.pdf + appeal story.pdf

Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (India) Ltd Vs ITO,Mumbai (Dated: December 31, 2008)

Income tax - Department not having filed appeal against CIT's order cannot assail it when the assessee is in appeal – The department not having filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), has no grievance and is evidently satisfied. Neither has the department filed a cross objection. It is, therefore, only the appeal filed by the assessee which is before the Tribunal. [If the respondent wanted to challenge the decision of the trial court, it was open to him to file a cross-appeal or cross-objection. But the very fact that he has not done so shows that he is quite content with the decision given by the trial court. Therefore, under these circumstances, his only right is to support the decision of the trial court. It is true that he may support the decision of the trial court not only on the grounds contained in the judgment of the trial court, but on any other ground – Bombay High Court]

An issue concluded finally against the assessee in the original assessment only is not permitted to be re-agitated in reassessment proceedings – not applicable to issues which are in appeal. It is only an issue which has been concluded finally against the assessee in the original assessment, which is not permitted to be re-agitated in reassessment proceedings. In the present appeal, the assessee has agitated both the issues that were the subject matter of consideration in the original assessment. In the appeal before the CIT(A) as well as the ITAT, both the above issues were therefore not concluded finally against the assessee. Consequently, the assessee is well within its rights in reassessment proceedings to agitate both the above issues before the Tribunal.:MUMBAI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-364-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s SRT Enterprises Vs CCE, Ludhiana (Dated: January 7, 2009)

ST - C & F Service - Assessee is a distributor of a telecom company for sale of pre-paid and post-paid connections and recharge coupons - Revenue raises demand and imposes penalty - Commissioner (A) orders for pre-deposit - held, prima facie the assessee's case is not covered under C & F service and since the revenue has already appropriated the deposit made, waiver from pre-deposit granted and the issue remanded to the Commissioner (A) to decide on merit :DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-363-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CCE, Vapi Vs M/s Unimark Remedies Ltd (Dated: December 26, 2008)

ST - Cenvat Credit - assessee avails credit for tax paid on GTA service on the basis of declaration made by GTAs on their letter heads - Revenue disallows - held, the requirement of declaration in the invoice is only procedural, and since there is substantial compliance with the requirement of the Notification, credit cannot be denied - Revenue's appeal rejected:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-26-SC-CX.pdf + nestle story.pdf

M/s Nestle India Ltd Vs CCE, Chandigarh (Dated: February 25, 2009)

Central Excise – manufacture - whether the process undertaken to make "intermixture of vitamins" for ‘ Lactogen ' and ‘ Cerelac ' amounts to manufacture – Tribunal's order cryptic and does not deal with points raised: the decision of the Tribunal impugned by the assessee is cryptic. It does not deal with the points which are specifically raised by the assessee in its appeals filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal will also have to decide the meaning of the word "consumer" in Note 11. Since the above questions have not been decided by the Tribunal in proper perspective, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for de novo disposal in accordance with law.

Suppression – extended period of limitation: As held in the judgment of the Court in the case of Padmini Products Vs. Collector of C.Ex ., ( 2002-TIOL-289-SC- CX ), as well as in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments ( 2002-TIOL-266-SC-CX ) , extended period of limitation is applicable only when there is some positive act other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer. There must be conscious or deliberate withholding of information by the manufacturer to invoke larger period of limitation. : SUPREME COURT;

2009-TIOL-361-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Pune-II Vs D B Technologies Pvt Ltd (Dated: September 25, 2008)

Central Excise - valuation - inclusion of value of batteries in the value of UPS cleared - the verification report by the jurisdictional authorities indicates that the UPS systems were not cleared along with batteries - value of batteries is not required to be included in the value of UPS - matter remanded.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-362-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Patriot Freight Logistic System Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: October 6, 2008)

Customs – Import – Cross-examination – Principles of natural justice – Cross-examination had been permitted by the predecessor of the adjudicating authority and five other witnesses had already been cross-examined before the previous authority . The adjudication proceedings of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) were in continuation of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Customs ( Sea Port ), Chennai. The permission granted to the party by the Commissioner of Customs should have been honoured by his successor. Apparently, this has not happened in this case. In these facts and circumstances the case is remanded, to enable the learned Commissioner to apply his mind to the submissions of the parties and pass a speaking order on merits, by following the principles of natural justice. ( Para 3):CHENNAI CESTAT;