CBDT gives addl charge of CCIT (CCA) for UP (West) to CCIT, Kanpur;

Saudi Arabia: Unicef expresses concern over 8 year old girl's marriage;

Capaigning for 1st Phase of polling ends today; PM dubs 'Independent candidates' as spoiler;

EC issues notice on Laloo for infraction of model code of conduct;

EC gives nod to Govt proposal to exempt sugar import from duty;

11 CRPF jawans lose life in gun battle with Maoists launching attack on armoury and bauxite mine of Nalco in Orissa; EC changes poll dates in 15 Naxal-affected districts;

MIXED BUZZZ

mbuzz0383.pdf

Climate change talks: Pressure on India to opt for clean coal technology, says Special Envoy to PM;

mbuzz0382.pdf

Security Council flays DPR Korea's recent rocket launch;

mbuzz0381.pdf

Saudi Arabia: Unicef expresses concern over 8 year old girl's marriage;

2009-TIOL-222-ITAT-BANG.pdf + Saint gobain story.pdf

Saint Gobain Crystals & Detectors India Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Bangalore (Dated : January 30, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 10B benefits - Assessee is a subsidiary of a non-resident company - parent company is taken over by another larger Group of Companies - Assessee undergoes a name change but no change in owership pattern - AO insists the assessee needs to take fresh approval from Central Govt after its takeover by a name company - denies exports benefits on the ground of domestic sales and also the fact that the assembling of instruments does not amount to manufacture - CIT(A) agrees - held, mere name-change does not change the EoU status of the unit particularly in the light of the fact that there was no change in the shareholding pattern - assembling involving multiple stages of processing and resulting in a new commercial product with distinct use and name does amount to manufacture and a minimal percentage of domestic sales simply needs to be allowed benefits as per Sec 10B(4) - Assessee's appeal allowed :BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-221-ITAT-BANG.pdf

Mrs Shakuntala Devi Vs DDIT,Bangalore (Dated : January 30, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 54 - Assessee sells her flat - makes capital gains - signs an MoU with a seller of a property and transfers substantial part of total consideration - claims exemption u/s 54 - AO disallows exemption on the ground that the assessee had not got ownership of the property within the time-limit of two years - Assessee argues that the capital gains made had been transferred to the seller of the property being purchased as per the MoU and was eligible for exemption - held, transfer of property, possession or ownership have nothing to do with the case as long as the sum of capital gains stands transferred to the seller for purchase of a new flat as this fulfils the condition of Sec 54 - Assessee's appeal allowed :BANGALORE ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-596-CESTAT-MAD.pdf + stgst story.pdf

M/s URC Construction (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: February 11, 2009)

Service tax – Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit – Construction of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service under works contract is taxable only with effect from 1.6.2006 – prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-595-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s United Telecom Ltd Vs CST,Bangalore (Dated: August 20, 2008)

Service Tax – setting up of WAN on BOT basis does not come under the purview of online information & database access/retrieval service – Ownership of the data very relevant – Activity undertaken by appellant could come under Telecommunication service w.e.f. 01.07.07 – Tax demand and levy of penalty set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief:BANGALORE CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-177-HC-MUM-CUS-LB.pdf + Shree Rubber Plast Story.pdf

CCE Vs M/s Shree Rubber Plast Co Pvt Ltd (Dated: December 19, 2008)

Customs/Excise – Appeals – Extension of time for delay in filing appeals in High Court governed by Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 29(2) of Limitation Act clearly indicates that provisions there under shall apply to appeal proceedings under special or local law unless expressly excluded by such special or local law – High Court being the Superior Court has power to condone delay in filing the appeal unless there is clear indication of its exclusion by implication in special or local law:BOMBAY HIGH COURT LARGER BENCH ;

Jays Engineering (India) Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai-III (Dated: March 4, 2009)

Procedure under rule 233B of CER, 1944 is only directory and not mandatory – Refund not time barred – Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Defective barrels cleared at lower value – Preventive team insisted that duty should have been paid on the higher value as applicable for fresh or first quality drums - Appellants paid differential duty as demanded by Preventive Department and informed Assistant Commissioner that the same is paid under protest – Procedure under rule 233B of CER, 1944 is only directory and not mandatory – Refund not time barred – Appeal allowed by way of remand.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

DGFT PUBLIC NOTICES

dgft08pn173.pdf

DGFT amends Foreign Trade Policy to curb import of fake pharma products;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-177-HC-MUM-CUS-LB.pdf + Shree Rubber Plast Story.pdf

CCE Vs M/s Shree Rubber Plast Co Pvt Ltd (Dated: December 19, 2008)

Customs/Excise – Appeals – Extension of time for delay in filing appeals in High Court governed by Limitation Act, 1963 – s. 29(2) of Limitation Act clearly indicates that provisions there under shall apply to appeal proceedings under special or local law unless expressly excluded by such special or local law – High Court being the Superior Court has power to condone delay in filing the appeal unless there is clear indication of its exclusion by implication in special or local law:BOMBAY HIGH COURT LARGER BENCH ;

2009-TIOL-594-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Just Marble Vs CC, Jaipur (Dated: January 5, 2009)

Customs – Import of rough marble blocks – Goods imported cannot be regarded as limestone classifiable under Chapter 2515.20 in the absence of specific test report from GSI – Eligible for free imports and benefit of DEEC license – Impugned order denying the benefit set aside:DELHI CESTAT;