Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure constituted; PM to head it;

CBDT finally issues transfer order of 260 CITs + retains 17 at existing charge + promotes 82 Addl CITs as CITs and issues posting order for 60;

Branded paper label manufacturers yet to get respite in Central Excise SSI exemption notification;

Six AIIMS-like medical colleges to be completed by 2011: Minister;

India to make efforts for 10% growth: PM;

Support to India's claim for UNSC seat rising: PM

Somalian pirates again hijack Indian cargo ship with 15 crew on board;

TIOL COMMENTARY

cabinet story.pdf

Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure constituted; PM to head it;

BUDGET ANALYSIS

budgetstory46.pdf

Branded paper label manufacturers yet to get respite in Central Excise SSI exemption notification

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0644.pdf

Price control regime for essential drugs: GoM yet to arrive at consensus;

mbuzz0643.pdf

Six AIIMS-like medical colleges to be completed by 2011;

mbuzz0642.pdf

Third mini Pravasi Bharatiya Divas to be held in Hague;

CBDT Order 096_2009.pdf

CBDT issues transfer order of 260 CITs + retains 17 at existing charge;

CBDT Order 095_2009.pdf

CBDT promotes 82 Addl CITs as CITs;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-442-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Meher Foundation & Civil Engineering Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: May 12, 2009)

Income Tax - Assessee company, working as contractor ion construction business, sub contracted certain works and made payment to them on that account - AO disallowed the payments on the ground that the notices issued to the sub contractors returned undelivered and assessee failed to furnish evidence or the fresh addresses of such sub contractors - CIT(A) rejected the application filed by the assessee u/s 46A to admit additional evidence in support of the claim of the genuineness of expenses - Held, principles of natural justice warrants that the assessee be allowed an opportunity to produce evidence to support the claim of deduction - Held, the difficulty of the assessee in collecting the evidence from small contractors, who do not have permanent addresses, has got to be appreciated and it would be in the interest of justice to entertain the evidence - Assessee's appeal allowed for statistical purposes. :MUMBAI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1042-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s PML Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Chandigarh (Dated: May 4, 2009)

ST - Slaughter House - Assessee had 100% EoU status - Tribunal had held that the activity undertaken by the assessee was manufacturing of meat - Revenue now treats the same activity as a service - held, the incidental activity of slaughter cannot be disintegrated from manufacturing activity which is predominant activity of the assessee - Slaughtering serves the main purpose of manufacture of meat - assessee is beyond the scope and ambit of tax under the Finance Act, 1994, as the act of slaughtering is providing no such service alone - assessee's appeal allowed :DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1043-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + 35F story.pdf

Radhey Shaym Gupta Vs CCE, Ludhiana (Dated: April 20, 2009)

Central Excise – Application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of Appellate Commissioner's order – Assessee to point out arbitrariness on the part of lower authority in refusing to exercise discretion under proviso to Section 35F – When records reveal that lower authority applied its mind and directed pre-deposit of entire amount and refused to exercise discretion to waive pre-deposit of entire amount or part thereof, no reason to interfere with such order – Mere contention that Appellate Commissioner did not consider merits of the case before order of pre-deposit not a ground to interfere – No plea of financial hardship – Stay of impugned order cannot be granted – Assessee to comply with order of pre-deposit and report compliance:DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-1041-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Sutures India Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Bangalore (Dated: January 1, 2009)

Customs – Import – Exemption Notification - The appellants had right from the beginning only claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Sl. No.367 of Notification No.21/2002 Cus. (No.17/2001, 6/2000 CE) but never claimed the benefit of Sl. No.363. If an applicant does not claim benefit under a particular notification at the initial stage, he is not debarred, prohibited or estopped from claiming such benefit at a later stage. ( Para 10.4)

Mis-declaration - The law is clearly settled as to the claiming of classification of the goods and claiming exemption under particular notification is a matter of belief and would not amount to mis-declaration. (Para 10.5) : BANGALORE CESTAT;