Emergency declared in Bangkok; PM's carcade attacked;

OECD Composite Leading Indicator indicates 'reinforced' slowdown in India;

American arrested at Mumbai Airport with live cartridges;

Healthcare is now topic of boardroom debate: Apollo Hospital chief;

China's foreign exchange pile-up surpasses USD 1.95 trillion;

President of India notifies 4th Phase of Polls for 85 seats;

Supporters of former Thai PM storm India-ASEAN meet venue; Kamal Nath is safe;

ACC clears Power Secretary V S Sampath's name for next Election Commissioner;

FICCI seeks greater market access in ASEAN for export of services;

TIOL COMMENTARY

oecd story.pdf

War against tax havens: Switzerland angry with OECD, vetoes Budget line for G20-related work;

MIXED BUZZZ

mbuzz0378.pdf

Healthcare is now topic of boardroom debate: Apollo Hospital chief ;

mbuzz0377.pdf

Unemployment in OECD countries grows by 7.3% in Feb;

mbuzz0376.pdf

World Bank sets up USD 40 mn fund to help poor countries trade;

2009-TIOL-173-HC-MUM-WT.pdf

CWT Vs Shri A M Bhiwandiwalla (Dated: February 13, 2009)

Wealth tax - Sec 127 of the I-T Act - Revenue issues notification under Sec 127 to transfer jurisdiction of the assessee's case for wealth tax case - Tribunal holds it is not valid unless a separate notification under Sec 8 of Wealth Tax Act is issued - held, once Sec 127 notification is issued to transfer the jurisdiction, the same officer also assumes the powers under the Wealth Tax Act and no separate notification u/s 8 is required as this can be issued independent of Sec 127 for the same purpose - HC differs with the view of Madras HC and sets aside the Tribunal's order - Revenue's appeal allowed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-172-HC-MUM-IT.pdf

M/s Salem Mangnesite P Ltd Vs CIT, Bombay (Dated: January 17, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 28 - Business loss - Assessee is into mining business - gives loan to its own subsidiary whick is also into mining activities - subsidiary suffers loss - assessee settles for a nominal sum against the loan amount and claims the same as business loss incidental to the business - AO disallows - CIT(A) and Tribunal agree with the AO - Assessee pleads it as bad debt allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) - held, assessee cannot be allowed to take a new line of argument relating to bad debt as the reference is about business loss u/s 28 and it cannot be allowed. All the three authorities have concluded that the loss arising from the loan advanced to the subsidiary did not emanate directly from the business of the assessee company and the same cannot be treated as incidental to it. Moreover, the assessee was not into money lending business - no infirmities in these views - Assessee's appeal dismisse: BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-584-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + federal story.pdf

Federal Bank Ltd Vs CCE, CC & ST, Cochin (Dated: November 25, 2008)

Service Tax - Cash Management Services -  the services would be taxable under the category of Banking and other financial services only with effect from June 2007. During the disputed period, Cash Management Service is specifically excluded - When the service is excluded from the scope of Banking and other financial services, revenue cannot say that the said service would be classifiable under the category of Business Auxiliary Service and subject it to levy.: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-580-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Vridheshwar Agriculture Produce Transport Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Aurangabad (Dated: February 5, 2009)

Prima facie appellant was carrying into effect the contract awarded by the sugar manufacturer and not rendering any taxable service as ‘manpower recruitment or supply agency' – Pre-deposit of penalty waived and stay granted.

Appellant engaged by a sugar manufacturer to cut sugar cane and deliver the same at the sugar factory – employees were paid by the appellant – Prima facie appellant was carrying into effect the contract awarded by the sugar manufacturer and not rendering any taxable service as ‘manpower recruitment or supply agency' – Service Tax of Rs.21 lakhs already paid at the insistence of the departmental officers – Any direction to pre-deposit the penalty amount is bound to cause undue hardships to appellant in view of SC decision in Monotosh Saha vs. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate [ 2008-TIOL-156-SC-FEMA ] – Pre-deposit waived and stay granted:MUMBAI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-51-SC-CX.pdf + fluid story.pdf

CCE & CC, Indore Vs M/s Parenteral Drugs (I) Ltd (Dated: March 31, 2009)

CE – Exemption to IV Fluids - exemption notifications have to be read strictly; burden is on the assessee to prove that the item falls within the four corners of the exemption notification: SUPREME COURT;

2009-TIOL-585-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Trent Ltd Vs CCE, Vapi (Dated: December 17, 2008)

Central Excise – Manufacture of talcum powder by contract manufacturer – When there is ample evidence to suggest that goods are manufactured by the contract manufacturer employing his factory machinery, labour etc, principal cannot be held liable for excise duty – Demand of duty and imposition of penalty/personal penalties set aside : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-582-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + rom story.pdf

CCE, Mumbai Vs M/s Pleasantime Products (Dated: February 13, 2009)

‘Scrabble' story continues - Revenue's ROM application against Miscellaneous order passed on ROM application of assessee dismissed by Tribunal.

Larger Bench Tribunal decision in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs [ 2002-TIOL-300-CESTAT-Del-SB ] and decision in CCE, Belapur vs. Kellog India Pvt. Ltd. [ 2008-TIOL-128-CESTAT-MUM ] relied upon: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-581-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s International Transmission Product Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai-III (Dated: January 9, 2009)

Duty paid through Supplementary invoices on enhancement of price with retrospective effect – recovery of interest thereon - as matter has been referred to Larger Bench of five Members, matter not free from doubt and hence stay is warranted – Pre-deposit of interest waived and recovery stayed: MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-583-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Oriental Container Ltd Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: December 30, 2008)

It is beyond the purview of the Commissioner(A) to deny refund on a ground that was never alleged by Revenue – Matter remanded.

Refund – Sanctioning authority holding that incidence of duty has been passed to customers and hence crediting the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund – in appeal, Commissioner(A) held that the refund claim could not have been sanctioned as original assessment not challenged – It was totally beyond his purview to reject the refund on such a ground moreso since Revenue had not come in appeal challenging the refund order – Matter remanded.MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-579-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Shri Sumit Jalan Vs CC, N Sheva (Dated: February 12, 2009)

Attempted export of books in respect of which the copy right is held by a UK company – Goods confiscated and penalty imposed on appellants on ground of abetment of infringement of copyright – no notification issued u/s 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 to support confiscation – appellants have succeeded in establishing a prima facie case against imposition of penalties – Pre-deposit waived: MUMBAI CESTAT;