S(e)izing the Superbikes! (See 'Special Column';

Lucknow DRI detains 100 containers at Dadri ICD; Goods declared as heavy melting scrap turns out to be prime and alloy steel; 20 containers diverted to Ludhiana ICD also detained for examination;

MoF Chief Economic Advisor Arvind Virmani to replace Adarsh Kishore as ED in IMF;

NTPC finally joins the gas row by filing petition in SC;

Drawback - misuse of Cir 74/2002 - CBEC issues clarification;

India to contribute USD 10 bn to shore up IMF resources: FM;

BRIC Finance Ministers, Central Bank Governors welcome recovery of global economy ;

India, Switzerland sign social security pact;

Filing up the post of Director in Tax Research Unit (TRU) in the Board;

TIOL COMMENTARY

2009-TIOL-465-HC-DEL-FEMA.pdf + fera story.pdf

Vinod Kumar Sahadev Vs UoI (Dated: August 17, 2009)

FERA - Once the alleged statement was retracted with allegations of force and duress the onus to prove that the said statement was voluntary shifted to the Government; Opportunity to Cross examine denied – It is apparent that once the alleged statement made by the appellant on 13.9.1985 was retracted on 14.9.1985 itself with allegations of force and duress upon the appellant, the onus to prove that the said statement was voluntary shifted upon the respondent, which onus has not been discharged by them and it is on that basis even the criminal prosecution resulted in the discharge of the appellant and other accused persons.

Even the lighter burden to prove the case by preponderance of probability not discharged – no opportunity has been granted to the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses who recorded the statement of the appellant and of other accused persons or the witnesses to the recovery of the incriminating documents or the witnesses to the recovery of the alleged foreign exchange from Surinder Kumar Dhawan and as such even the lighter burden to prove their case by preponderance of probability has not been discharged by the respondent: DELHI HIGH COURT;

spl down.pdf

S(e)izing the Superbikes!;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0821.pdf

PC going to USA to study counter-terrorism institutions;

mbuzz0820.pdf

India to contribute USD 10 bn to shore up IMF resources: FM;

mbuzz0819.pdf

BRIC Finance Ministers, Central Bank Governors welcome recovery of global economy ;

mbuzz0818.pdf

India, Switzerland sign social security pact;

2009-TIOL-467-HC-DEL-IT.pdf + interest story.pdf

CIT Vs Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd (Dated: July 24, 2009)

Income Tax – Interest paid by assessee on borrowed funds not to be disallowed on the ground that a portion thereof was diverted to its subsidiary company – Revenue has not discharged its onus of proving that loan was given for any personal benefit of any director or for any other personal reason, loan given by assessee to its subsidiary company to be held as for the purpose of business and commercial expediency – Tribunal is undisputedly the last fact finding authority and High Court cannot overlook this cardinal principle – No infirmity in the ITAT order upholding assessees claim.: DELHI HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-553-ITAT-BANG.pdf

Shree Public Charitable Trust Vs DIT, Bangalore (Dated: May 29, 2009)

Income Tax - Sec 2(15) - DIT (Exemptions) holds that the objects of the trust set out in clauses are not charitable in nature in view of the insertion of proviso to Sec. 2(15) w.e.f. 01.04.2008 - Assessee contends that the purpose of the Trust is to provide Medical relief, Education and Relief to the poor which are charitable in nature - Held, the trust should be encouraged in the interest of general public. The trust is a charitable trust as defined u/s. 2(15). The DIT (Exemptions) is hereby directed to renew the approval u/s 80G of the appellant.:BANGALORE ITAT;

vacancy_tru.pdf

Filing up the post of Director in Tax Research Unit (TRU) in the Board;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1407-CESTAT-KOL.pdf

M/s S D Business Enterprise Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Kolkata (Dated: June 9, 2009)

ST - C&F Service - Assessee claims deduction of reimbursed sum from the gross amount - held, since the reimbursement is not properly reflected in the monthly returns nor the same is provided for in the agreement, a pre-deposit of 50% of the demand is ordered.: KOLKATA CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1405-CESTAT-KOL.pdf

M/s Premier Security Enterprises Vs CCE & CC, Patna (Dated: April 21, 2009)

ST - Security Agency Service - Assesee argues that it receives only 15% as service charge and is liable to pay tax only on this sum - held, it is settled law that security agency service providers are liable to pay tax on the gross receipt - penalty reduced.: KOLKATA CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1401-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd Vs CST, Belgaum (Dated: May 13, 2009)

Service Tax – Transportation of ore within the mining area not leviable to service tax – Prima facie case in favour of appellants – Full waiver of pre-deposit ordered and stay granted: BANGALORE CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-466-HC-MUM-CX.pdf + ctd story.pdf

CCE Vs M/s Air Carrying Corporation India Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 4, 2009)

Central Excise – Allegation of clandestine clearance of CTD bars based on furnace oil consumption – Clandestine removal of CTD Bars as alleged by Revenue in addendum/corrigendum show cause notice not admitted by assessee and burden of proving clandestine removal on Revenue which has not been discharged – Findings recorded by Tribunal that the furnace was severely damaged and due to consequential loss of heat, furnace oil consumption alone not sufficient to estimate production of CTD bars, concurred – Nothing on record to show that Tribunal ignored or failed to take into consideration any relevant fact or that the view of Tribunal is in any way perverse.: BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-1404-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Axwel (India) Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated: January 5, 2009)

Central Excise – Job work charges not to be included for determining aggregate value of clearances for SSI unit – Not to be considered for the purpose of refund claim in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 – Impugned order set aside.: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1402-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Mayil Mark Nilayam Vs CCE, Chennai (Dated: March 5, 2009)

Central Excise – manufacture – shikakai powder - the activity of pulverisation of shikakai constituted manufacture and the issue stands settled for the period prior to January 1999 - demand of duty upheld for normal period with cum-duty and SSI benefits.

Arapputhool - grinding mohwacake into powder and packing it in unit packages does not amount to manufacture as the essential character of the product at the starting point of the process and the product at the terminal point remained the same – demand of duty set aside.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

CIRCULAR

cuscir09_024.pdf

Misuse of circular No.74/2002-Cus dated 8th November, 2002 ;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-464-HC-MAD-COFEPOSA.pdf + Zulika Gani Story.pdf

Zulika Gani Vs Secretary to Government, Chennai (Dated: July 31, 2009)

COFEPOSA – Detention based on a solitary incident - in the absence of any material or bad antecedents in the past, or in the absence of anything to indicate propensity and potentiality of the detenu to involve in future, Detention set aside: no bad antecedents are brought to the notice of the Court that he was actually involved in any criminal activities in the past, and further he was engaged in smuggling. In the case on hand this Court is unable to notice that the detenu had the propensity and potentiality to involve in such activities in future. Under the circumstances, once it is a stray incident which is brought to the notice of the Court, in the absence of any material or bad antecedents in the past, or in the absence of anything to indicate propensity and potentiality of the detenu to involve in future, this Court feels that on that ground, the order under challenge has got to be set aside following the judgment of the Apex Court.:MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-1406-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Ravi Woolen Mills Vs CC, Amritsar (Dated: March 27, 2009)

Customs – Refund sanctioned by original authority based on CA certificate certifying no unjust enrichment – No evidence adduced by Appellate Commissioner to prove unjust enrichment – Impugned order set aside.: DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1403-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Repl Engineering Ltd Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: March 5, 2009)

Section 18 of Customs Act, 1962 – Prior to 13.07.2006 excess duty found to have been paid at the time of provisional assessment was to be refunded to an assessee consequent upon finalization without any claim being made – hence doctrine of unjust enrichment not applicable at that time – LB decision in Hindustan Zinc 2009-TIOL-484-CESTAT-AHM-LB relied upon. : MUMBAI CESTAT;