Thank God - IPL is not in UK (See 'DDT')

CBEC notifies new Customs exchange rate for Australian Dollar + Swedish Kroner;

Govt bans fishing by all fishing vessels in Indian EEZ beyong territorial waters on East Coast and West Coast from April 15 to July 31, 2009;

India's anti-submarine helicopter on routine training mission crashes near Goa;

Economic crisis may upset China's rural applecart: OECD;

CVC gives nod for prosecution against four, initiation of major penalty against 11 from CBEC; action taken against 3 CBDT officials;

India voices concern over protectionism under green label;

WTO Council for Trade in Goods gives nod for Pakistan to head Customs Valuation Committee;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 25 March.pdf

GST from 2010 – If Congress is voted back to power;

spcl-down.pdf

Indo-Asean Free Trade Pact: A new milestone in India's Look-East Policy;

office_memorandum.pdf

Date of next increment in cases where Government servants are not able join posts in a particular grade pay on promotion/appointment on 1st of January of a year due to Sunday or Gazetted holiday - clarification regarding;

MIXED BUZZZ

mbuzz0323.pdf

Economic crisis may upset China's rural applecart: OECD;

mbuzz0322.pdf

To overcome downturn, governance and compliance are central issues: RBI Dy Governor;

mbuzz0321.pdf

CVC nod for prosecution against 4, initiation of penalty against 11 from CBEC; action taken against 3 from CBDT;

mbuzz0320.pdf

WTO Council for Trade in Goods gives nod for Pakistan to head Customs Valuation Committee;

2009-TIOL-146-HC-MUM-IT.pdf + pallonji story.pdf

Mr Pallonji M Mistry Vs CIT, Bombay (Dated: February 11, 2009)

Income Tax - there is no requirement that there has to be a registered Deed of conveyance for a person to be treated as an owner of property for the purpose of Section 22: It would be clear from the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Poddar Cement , that there is no requirement that there has to be a registered Deed of conveyance for a person to be treated as an owner for the purpose of Section 22 of the Income Tax Act.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-145-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

CIT, Delhi-IX Vs Jitin Gupta (Dated: March 3, 2009)

Income tax - Search u/s 132 - Assessee is into sale of DEPB - after search block return filed - AO makes additions on various counts - two of additions relating to credit and commission paid disputed - CIT(A) examines facts and deletes additions - Tribunal upholds CIT(A) order as it finds the credit and commission paid were revealed in regular returns and the same were assessed by the Revenue - held, Chapter XIVB of I-T Act is a special procedure of assessment only for undisclosed income found during the search and not for assessing the income disclosed in regular returns - it cannot be a substitute for regular assessment - the materials found during the search should be clearly relatable to undisclosed income and not otherwise - no substantial question of law involved - Revenue's appeal dismissed : DELHI HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-144-HC-ALL-IT.pdf

Dr Deepak Agrawal Vs ACIT (Dated: February 27, 2009)

Income Tax - A search and seizure was conducted at petitioner's premises and undisclosed income was added to his income during block assessment - CIT(A) allowed part appeal pertaining to an alleged gift - Tribunal held that it is a matter for consideration in the Regular Assessment and not the Block Assessment - Held, that two conditions must be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer can act under section 34(1) (b), (i) - He must have information in his possession, which, in the context, means that the relevant information must have come into his possession subsequent to the making of the assessment order in question and (ii) this information must lead to his belief that income chargeable to income-tax has escaped assessment for any year, or that it has been under-assessed or assessed at too low a rate or has been made the subject of excessive relief under the Act - Petition dismissed.: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-143-HC-MUM-IT.pdf

Supreme Treves Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: February 17, 2009)

Income tax - Writ - Sec 32(3)(b) - Assessee is a manufacturer - claims depreciation on goodwill as intangible asset - Reassessment u/s 147 after expiry of four years - Revenue holds that no depreication is allowable on goodwill and alleges lack of details in the turn about the nature of goodwill - held, reassessment after expiry of four years can be initiated provided the conditions of Sec 147 are fulfilled but in this case it is not satisfied as the assessee has furnished the entire details in its balance sheet and the Revenue has not taken the ground that the depreciation is allowable based on the nature of goodwill - rather the Revenue has taken the stand that no depreciation is allowable on intangible asset but the same was allowed in the relevant assessment order and the same cannot be re-opened now - Assessee's appeal allowed:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-185-ITAT-DEL.pdf

ACIT, New Delhi Vs M/s SDRC India Pvt Ltd (Dated : March 6, 2009 )

Income Tax - Sec 92 - Assessee provides software development services to its non-resident parent company - enters into agreement for payment equal to cost of development plus a mark up @ 5% - AO invokes Sec 92 - determination of arm's length price - adjustment of price - mark-up enhanced to 10% - CIT(A) deletes the addition - held, in view of lack of evidence and the finding made in subsequent AY when the case was referred to the TPO and the price was found to be ALP, the AO making adjustment is not justified and if the AO was convinced that there was an arrangement between the assessee and the parent company to avoid tax it should have referred the case to the TPO u/s 92 C - no mistake in the decision of the CIT(A) - Revenue's appeal dismissed :DELHI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-490-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Millipore India Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated: November 18, 2008)

Service received towards medical benefit, canteen & education allowance to employees form part of cost of production of final products as per CAS-4 – service tax paid thereon available as CENVAT credit – landscaping of factory premises comes under purview of definition of ‘input service' – Tax paid thereon available as CENVAT credit – Appeal allowed with consequential relief.:BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-487-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Texcity Sales & Services (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated: January 5, 2009)

Service Tax – Business Auxiliary Service – Maintenance or Repair services – Refund – Appellants rendered repair services and erroneously paid Service Tax under BAS. Refund claim rejected on the ground that services rendered fall under MRS. Repair of spares of the appellants' client at its own premises cannot constitute repair under maintenance contract or agreement either written or oral. The impugned order which rejected the claim of refund is therefore not sustainable. Refund allowed. (Para 4):CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-486-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Shri Karamjit Singh & Co Vs CCE, Raipur (Dated: February 13, 2009)

ST - Site formation service - Revenue insists on inclusion of value of fuel supplied free of cost in the gross value for the levy - assessee pleads that there are decisions of the HC and the Tribunal, where similar issues were involved, the pre-deposit has been waived off - held, in view of precedent decisions, no recovery of demand during pendency of appeal is called for:DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-491-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + Jay Precision Story.pdf

Jay Precision Products India Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai (Dated: February 10, 2009)

Cenvat Credit is a substantial right and the SCN or the Order does not allege that the essential conditions under the CCR, 2004 were not satisfied by the assessee – Tribunal stays recovery of 64 lakhs demand :MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-489-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Kiran Pondy Chems Ltd Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Dated: January 27, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT – Amalgamation /Merger of units – Transfer of credit – The sole ground for denying the CENVAT credit was that the appellants had not taken permission under Rule 10 of CCR. As per settled law, no such permission is required to be taken by the appellants to avail the balance of CENVAT credit when the erstwhile assessee got merged with the appellant. Appeal allowed. ( Para 4) :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-488-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Garden Silk Mills Ltd Vs CCE, Surat-I (Dated: December 4, 2008)

Central Excise - classification of Taspa Yarn - the entire dispute of correct classification was the subject matter of various decisions of the Tribunal. Even Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal being in favour of the assessee, is sufficient fact and reasonable cause for them to entertain bonafide belief that the Taspa yarn is not classifiable under Heading 56 -  As such, it has to be held that there was no suppression or mis-statement on the part of the appellant with an intent to evade payment of duty so as to justifiably invoke longer period of limitation..:AHMEDABD CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

dgft08cir073.pdf

DGFT Circular Corrigendum;

cnt09_037.pdf

CBEC notifies new Customs exchange rate for Australian Dollar + Swedish Kroner;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-42-SC-CUS.pdf + sc cus story.pdf

CC Vs M/s Aafloat Textiles (I) Pvt Ltd (Dated: February 16, 2009)

Import of gold and silver under Forged SIL – Extended period of limitation applicable- the SILs were not genuine documents and were forged. Since fraud was involved, in the eye of law such documents had no existence. Since the documents have been established to be forged or fake, obviously fraud was involved and that was sufficient to extend the period of limitation.

Caveat emptor- It was for the buyer to establish that he had no knowledge about the genuineness or otherwise of the SIL ; The maxim caveat emptor is clearly applicable to a case of this nature. Caveat emptor means "Let the purchaser beware." It is one of the settled maxims, applying to a purchaser who is bound by actual as well as constructive knowledge of any defect in the thing purchased, which is obvious, or which might have been known by proper diligence. "Caveat emptor does not mean either in law or in Latin that the buyer must take chances. It means that the buyer must take care." "Caveat emptor is the ordinary rule in contract. A vendor is under no duty to communicate the existence even of latent defects in his wares unless by act or implication he represents such defects not to exist."

Fraud and justice never dwell together – A "fraud" is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage.: SUPREME COURT;

2009-TIOL-142-HC-KOL-CUS.pdf + steel story.pdf

Steel Union Private Limited & Another Vs CC & Others (Dated: February 25, 2009)

Speculating in metals is risky business; The exhilaration of money pouring in following a good call made on a given day is chillingly dampened in the chagrin of the payout that may have to be made on the next. As much as there may be profit in the speculation business in the market, speculation on a bad cause is depressingly expensive.

Once the party has won the bid in the e-auction, no going back; no refund OF earnest deposit; The first petitioner or its agent made an offer. The customs authorities accepted such offer. The acceptance was communicated to the first petitioner or its authorised agent. The first petitioner or its authorised agent acknowledged receipt of the communication of acceptance. The earnest money was deposited on the understanding of the petitioners that the offer had been accepted. All that was left to be done was for the petitioners to put in the balance money, obtain the delivery order and remove the goods. There is little scope to perceive that the petitioners were unaware of their obligation. There is hardly any room for grievance. Though the respondents say that they have neither called upon the second highest bidder to accept the goods at the price offered by such bidder nor taken any steps to call a fresh auction, the petitioners are undeserving of even a liberty being granted to seek extension of the time to make the balance payment and receive the goods. There is simply no case that the petitioner has been able to make out.

An unflattering assessment of the judicial process or the more fashionable psyche of making a matter sub- judice to ward off an undeniable claim: It is distressing that such an unworthy cause was not stopped at any level of screening before it reached court. The unabashed attempt to slip out of a binding arrangement and the complete lack of diffidence reveal either an unflattering assessment of the judicial process or the more fashionable psyche of making a matter sub- judice to ward off an undeniable claim. Speculating in metals is risky business.:CALCUTTA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-485-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Keltron Electro Ceramics Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: January 6, 2009)

Customs – Import – Mis-declaration – Exemption Notification - Review of Assessment - Demand – Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit - The appellants hold that demand could not be made under Section 28 of the Act without successfully challenging the finalized assessment. The Apex Court has held that a Show Cause Notice under Section 28 of the Act could be issued to demand duty once the goods imported had been cleared, without revising the assessment order under Section 130 of the Customs Act. Prima facie no case has been made out. Pre-deposit ordered. ( Para 3) :CHENNAI CESTAT;