Chidambaram's silence over Tytler issue upsets scribe; Hindi Newspaper journalist throws shoe at Home Minister; Chidambaram performs a 'Bush Act' to duck it;

Service Tax liability on importers starts only from April 18, 2006;

CBEC promotes 14 as Chief Commissioner; issues transfer order 24 CCs;

Commissioners' promotion order: CBEC working hard on a holiday!

CBDT issues promotion order of CITs as CCITs; Also issues transfer-cum-posting order of CCITs;

Joint Initiative to leapfrog innovative potential of Indians above 18 year;

USD 65 bn required for population schemes to tackle poverty in 2010: UN;

TIOL COMMENTARY

stgst.pdf

Service Tax liability on importers starts only from April 18, 2006;

AS11.pdf

AS 11 deferred;

MIXED BUZZZ

mbuzz0366.pdf

UN Chief saddened by loss of life in Italy quake; offers aid;

mbuzz0365.pdf

USD 65 bn required for population schemes to tackle poverty in 2010: UN;

mbuzz0364.pdf

Joint Initiative to leapfrog innovative potential of Indians above 18 years;

cbdtorder35_2009.pdf

CBDT issues promotion order of CITs as CCITs;

cbdtorder36_2009.pdf

CBDT issues transfer order of CCITs;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-166-HC-MUM-IT.pdf + etrade story.pdf

E Trade Mauritius Ltd Vs ADIT (Dated: March 23, 2009)

Income tax - Writ - capital gains - Appellant is a Mauritius-based subsidiary of USA-based E-Trade Financial Corporation - sells shares of India-based IL&FS Investsmart Ltd to HSBC Violet Investments (Mauritius) Limited - Revenue for withholding tax certificate on sale consideration to pay capital gains tax - held, in view of the revisional order passed by the Revenue, a sum of Rs 24, 31,05,710 out of the tax amount earlier deposited with the court be released to the Revenue and the balance Rs 18,94,290 is to be refunded to the appellant - HSBC directed to issue TDS certificate to the appellant:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-212-ITAT-MUM.pdf

ACIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Gemplus Jewellery India Ltd (Dated : December 19, 2008)

Income tax - Sec 10A - Assessee is an exporter - Revenue for inclusion of freight and insurance charges in total turnover before deduction is claimed - held, although the term total turnover has not been defined in Sec 10A, but it is settled law that the profit derived from export is to be calculated by taking into account both export turnover and total turnover. However, it cannot be anybody's case that the assessee earned any profit on account of freight, telecommunication or insurance charges - such charges cannot be included in the total turnover before claiming Sec 10A benefits - Revenue's appeal dismissed:MUMBAI ITAT;

Order 62 of 2009.pdf

CBEC promotes 14 as Chief Commissioner; issues transfer order 24 CCs

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-557-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Clearchem Agencies Vs CCE, Indore (Dated: February 24, 2009)

ST - Stay granted in view of the fact that similar issue is pending before the Larger Bench:DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-556-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Shiv Motors Vs CCE, Rajkot (Dated: March 4, 2009)

ST - BAS - Assessee is engaged in sale and purchase of second-hand four wheelers and also arranges finance from banks - Demand raised and penalty imposed - Since part of demand and interest deposited, stay granted:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-165-HC-AHM-CX.pdf + Jayant Oil Story.pdf

Commissioner Vs Jayant Oil Mills (Dated: July 9, 2008)

Central Excise – Refund – Duty levied in accordance with provisions of the statute cannot get obliterated by virtue of a notification giving partial or full exemption – Duty paid on exempted goods cleared for export available as rebate – No infirmity in impugned order of Revisional Authority – No issue of law arises for intervention of High Court: GUJARAT HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-559-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Emil Pharmaceutical Vs CCE, Mumbai (Dated: January 2, 2009)

Medicaments sold by assessee to customers – payment of duty on the transaction value is in accordance with Section 4(1)(a) of the CEA, 1944 – demand of differential duty in terms of Rule 4 prima facie not sustainable – Pre-deposit waived.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-558-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CC, Mumbai Vs Mahavir Roads & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (Dated: January 22, 2009)

Notification 21/2002-Cus – Machinery for use in road construction - Prima facie , it would not be reasonable to hold that MMRDA is not a corporation empowered to construct roads – view taken by Commissioner(A) in extending the benefit of notification sounds good – no cause for stay of operation of order of lower appellate authority – Application filed by Revenue dismissed.

Notification 21/2002-Cus – Machinery for use in road construction – condition laid down is that the importer should have been awarded a contract for the construction of roads in India by or on behalf of the Ministry of Surface Transport, by the National Highway Authority of India, or by the Public Works Department of State government or by a road construction corporation under the control of the government of State or Union Territory – Appellant authorized by Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) – relevant provisions of MMRDA Act made by the State Legislature indicates that MMRDA is a body corporate having, inter alia , the power to contract – Prima facie, it would not be reasonable to hold that MMRDA is not a corporation empowered to construct roads – view taken by Commissioner(A) in extending the benefit of notification sounds good – no cause for stay of operation of order of lower appellate authority – Application filed by Revenue dismissed.: MUMBAI CESTAT;