CBEC notifies exemption under various exports promotion schemes and other provisions of Foreign Trade Policy;

Law Minister says there is need to revisit provisions giving protection to civil servants alleged of corruption;

US imposes 35% addl duty on Chinese tyres; China retaliates by launching anti-subsidy probe against US auto and chicken products;

Guwahati Customs seizes Rs 60 lakhs worth of heroin from Nigerian; Consignment concealed in 186 big buttons attached to ladies garments;

More people die from suicide annually than violent acts: WHO;

CBDT's arrear recovery efforts: PSUs cooperate with Revenue generously ;

Govt takes steps to promote domestic tourism;

Economic crisis to continue for some more time: IMF;

CJI favours separation of prosecution from investigation function for CBI;

EC briefs 510 Observers for State polls in Maharashtra, Haryana and Arunachal;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 14 sept.pdf

Additional Commissioners of Customs & Central Excise – Who appointed them?

tiol top.pdf

Direct Taxes Code Bill proposes virtually flat income tax rate; Is UPA Govt indeed prepared for adverse political fall-outs?

guest column.pdf

Swiss Bank accounts: Contrasting US and Indian approach;

recovery story.pdf

CBDT's arrear recovery efforts: PSUs cooperate with Revenue generously

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0847.pdf

Anti-corruption steps: Delegates call for confiscation of property of convicts;

mbuzz0846.pdf

Nath seeks WB's assistance to build highways;

mbuzz0845.pdf

Tourism Ministry to launch media campaign to promote domestic tourism;

mbuzz0844.pdf

More people die from suicide annually than violent acts: WHO;

2009-TIOL-492-HC-DEL-IT.pdf + income tax story.pdf

CIT, Delhi-IV Vs M/s Dass Trading & Holding (P) Ltd (Dated: August 19, 2009)

IT - bogus agricultural income shown in return – Penalty justified: the assessee in its original return had shown under Agricultural Income a sum of Rs.3,76,222 /-, which was reduced from the total income. However, in his revised return, it accepted the fact that the aforesaid income was not agricultural income and, therefore, declared the same as taxable income. Its claim that revised return was filed suo motu is not that innocent as is projected to be.:DELHI HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-491-HC-MUM-IT.pdf

CIT Vs M/s Papilion Investments Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 28, 2009)

Income Tax - Sec 47(v) - Assessee company transfers shares of its own subsidiary - Capital gains - Assessee claims such a transfer is beyond the purview of Sec 45 - AO disallows by interpreting the ‘whole of share capital' as the one held by the holding company alone - Tribunal rejects Revenue's stand by saying that such an interpreation will defeat the application of Sec 47(v) - held, no infirmity in Tribuna's decision - Revenue's appeal dismissed:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-490-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

CIT-II Vs Jagdamba Marbles Ltd (Dated: September 4, 2009)

Income Tax - Section 158BE(2b) - Finding of fact by the Tribunal  that  the notice u/s 158BD dated 24.1.2002 dispatched to the assessee on 28.1.2002 as per the postal receipt. The ITAT has further returned a finding of fact that this notice served upon the assessee on 30.1.2002. The Block Assessment Order came to be passed on 5.2.2004 and, therefore, lacked jurisdiction - Held, no error in Tribunal order, namely, since the Order dated 5.2.2004 has been passed beyond the permissible statutory period which expired on 31.1.2004, it is, therefore, legally non est - Revenue Appeal dismissed with cost:DELHI HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-489-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

M/s Diwakar Engineers Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: September 9, 2009)

Income tax - Section 147/148 - AO issues reassessment notice for six AYs after scrutiny of returns - Assessee goes in writ - held, since the AO has sufficient materials culled from various returns filed for different AYs and has also found bogus cash credits in the books, he has sufficient 'reason to believe' to invoke reassessment proceedings u/s 147 - Revenue's order sustained and Assessee's petition dismissed:DELHI HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-561-ITAT-AGRA-TM.pdf + liquor story.pdf

ITO, Gwalior Vs M/s Laxmi Narain Ramswaroop Shivhare (Dated: January 2, 2009)

IT – Trading of country liquor – No sale bills, but purchases supported by valid bills – No reason for addition applying estimated gross profit: This is the first year of the assessee's business. All its supplies are duly supported by proper vouchers and are regulated by the excise authorities and payment of country liquor is made through government warehouses against payment made to the government on the basis of the auction conducted by the government. In other words, the purchases are all supported by valid documents. When it comes to the sale, the nature of the assessee's business is such that it cannot maintain proper sale bills. But the assessee has declared 3.11% of gross profit. In fact, the AO has given comparative cases wherein the profit of 2.56% in the case of M/s S.R. Trading Co., Gwalior was shown. Again, the profit varies from area to area and the bid money that is paid by the assessee. The accounts of the assessee are subject to regular audit and the small variation in the profit is quite possible. The CIT( A) himself writes in his order that no significant defects are pointed out in the books of account by the assessee except the lack of sale bills. Having regard to these facts, A.M. is right in having given the direction to the department to accept the declared results.: AGRA ITAT (THIRD MEMBER) ;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1459-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + service tax story.pdf

CCE, Jaipur-I Vs M/s ANS Constructions Ltd (Dated: June 25, 2009)

Service Tax - maintenance of green belt - not "maintenance of immovable property" - The respondents were engaged for activities of growing of grass, plants, trees or fruits, vegetable, regular mowing of lawns, pruning & trimming of shrubs and cleaning of garden, would not come within the ambit of "maintenance of immovable property".:DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1458-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s B N Chaudhary Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: June 9, 2009)

ST - Construction Service - Assessee enters into a contract for civil works - revenue raises demand and imposes penalty - assessee argues since there was a change in definition of commercial concern in 2005, the assessee being a proprietor, is not liable to service tax for the prior period - held, since the assessee has paid the tax and there was a change in definition for the levy, waiver from pre-deposit granted:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1457-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CST, Ahmedabad Vs M/s Ashima Ltd (Dated: June 12, 2009)

ST - Consulting Engineer Service - Assessee pays royalty for transfer of technical knowhow - service provider is non-resident, having no office in India - it is not taxable prior to 1.1.2005 as held by the Larger Bench in the Hindustan Zinc case (2008-TIOL-1149-CESTAT-DEL-LB ):AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1452-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Skylift Cargo Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Chennai (Dated: May 11, 2009)

Service Tax – Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit – Business Auxiliary Service – Prima facie, discount allowed by the airlines cannot be treated as commission – pre-deposit waived.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-493-HC-MUM-CX.pdf + excise story.pdf

M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs UoI (Dated: August 13, 2009)

Waste water treatment plant is not a separate movable marketable goods and comes into existence only on assembly of parts in the civil work, there is no question of levying excise duty on it. However, simply collecting together at site the various parts would not amount to manufacture unless an excisable movable product (say a plant) comes into existence by assembly of such parts. In the present case, as the petitioner has stated that the waste water treatment plant does not come into existence unless all the parts are put together and embedded in the civil work. Waste water treatment plant does not become a plant until the process which includes the civil work, is completed. Therefore, no commercial movable property came into existence until the assembling was completed by embedding different parts in the civil works.

Show Cause Notice quashed – after eighteen years: It is true that normally in a writ jurisdiction, a Writ Court would not ordinarily interfere only on issuance of a show cause notice. However, the matter has been admitted in the year 1991. Eighteen years have passed after the petition was entertained and, in our view, it would not be appropriate at this stage to deny the relief to the petitioner on the ground that the petition is directed against the show cause notice especially when factually there is no dispute that the waste water treatment plant when totally assembled becomes an immovable property.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-1456-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs Hema Engineering Industries Ltd (Dated: June 26, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT – Inputs – Plastic Crates – The plastic crates participated in the process of production by making processed material available at various points within the factory. Hence, credit of duty paid on plastic crates allowed. ( Para 6) :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1455-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd Vs CCE, Tirunelveli (Dated: June 3, 2009)

Central Excise – Cenvat Credit – non payment of 10% amount on exempted goods under Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit rules 2004 – reversal of Credit on inputs used in exempted goods after their clearance is as good as not taking Credit – demand of 10% set aside.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1453-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Neptune Spin Fab Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: April 8, 2009)

Central Excise - Prior to insertion of sub Rule 3(A) in Rule 8 w.e.f 31.3.2005, assessee entitled to discharge duty liability out of CENVAT Credit A/c during forfeiture of fortnightly payment – Issue no longer res integra in view of LB decision Noble Drugs Limited 2007-TIOL-1097-CESTAT-MUM-LB – Duty demand set aside but interest levy upheld – Reduction of penalty on assessee confirmed and penalties on individuals set aside:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

ctariff09_091.pdf

Exemption notified for imports under Served from India Scheme;

ctariff09_092.pdf

Exemption granted under Focus Product Scheme;

ctariff09_093.pdf

Exemption granted for imports under Focus Market Scheme;

ctariff09_094.pdf

Import of capital goods exempted for agri infrastructure;

ctariff09_095.pdf

Exemption of capital goods under VKGUY Scheme;

ctariff09_097.pdf

Exemption from import duty under DEPB Scheme;

ctariff09_096.pdf

Exemption granted under Advance Authorisation scheme;

ctariff09_098.pdf

Exemption under Duty Free Import Authorisation Scheme;

ctariff09_099.pdf

Exemption granted against Advance Authorisation;

ctariff09_100.pdf

Exemption under EPCG Scheme to service providers;

ctariff09_101.pdf

Exemption under EPCG Scheme;

ctariff09_102.pdf

Exemption under EPCG Scheme;

ctariff09_103.pdf

Exemption under EPCG Scheme;

cnt09_141.pdf

Amends name of Sriperumbudur CFS;

cnt09_140.pdf

Adjudicating authority for M/s Nav Jyoti Chemicals and Fertilizers appointed;

cnt09_139.pdf

Adjudicating authority for M/s Praveen Kumar Hosiery appointed;

cnt09_138.pdf

Adjudicating authority for M/s Hemant Surgical Indus Ltd appointed;

cnt09_137.pdf

Adjudicating authority for M/s M K Enterprises appointed;

cnt09_136.pdf

Adjudicating authority for M/s Harkarandass Vedpal appointed;

cnt09_135.pdf

Adjudicating authority for M/s Harkarandass Deepchand appointed;

cnt09_134.pdf

Adjudicating authority for M/s Petrosolv India Company appointed;

cnt09_133.pdf

Jurisdiction of Customs Commissioner (Preventive), West Bengal, amended;

cnt09_132.pdf

Siliguri CCE given powers under Customs Act;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-1454-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Customs – Principles of natural justice – sample not available for re-test requested by the appellants – As no sample was available for doing a retest, relying on the test result obtained by the authorities to confirm demand against the appellants would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1451-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Rajan International Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: April 15, 2009)

Customs – export over-valuation – the order traversed beyond the show cause Notice – While show cause notice alleged contravention of Sec 113(d) and (m) (There is no such sub clause in the statute), the Commissioner (Appeals) held the goods liable for confiscation U/S 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.:CHENNAI CESTAT;