DTC - Powers to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty up for grabs! Are they heading for political abuse? (See 'Common Basket')

Union Govt issues advisory to combat human trafficking and crime against women;

CBEC needs to differentiate Sec 11AC and proviso to Sec 11A of Central Excise Act ;

Roll-back of stimulus package: Govt to wait and watch recovery process, says FM;

IGI Airport seizes ketamine worth Rs one crore; pax heading for Bangkok arrested;

PM going for G-20 Summit at Pittsburg; to oppose protectionism in trade;

Govt should allow adjustment of excess payment of service tax (See 'Common Basket');

Raxaul Customs seizes 7 tonnes ganja worth Rs 134 lakhs; 3 persons arrested;

Power Minister lures global investors into power sector investments;

Delhi GPO, revamped under Project Arrow, rededicated to public;

Economic slowdown hurts IP activity: WIPO;

TIOL COMMENTARY

prosecution-dtc.pdf

DTC - Powers to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty up for grabs! Are they heading for political abuse?

spl down.pdf

CBEC needs to differentiate Sec 11AC and proviso to Sec 11A of Central Excise Act;

human trafficking story.pdf

Union Govt issues advisory to combat human trafficking and crime against women;

stgst.pdf

Adjustment of excess payment of service tax;

CASE LAWS + ANALYSIS

2009-TIOL-501-HC-DEL-FEMA.pdf + fema story.pdf

S K Mittal Vs UoI (Dated: August 25, 2009)

FEMA – Penalty deposited in instalments in pursuant of earlier High Court Order in connection with similar appeals sufficient to hear current appeals – Order of Appellate Tribunal dismissing appeals for not making pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs set aside – Tribunal to hear appeal without insisting any further pre-deposit as directed in earlier High Court order: DELHI HIGH COURT:

2009-TIOL-500-HC-DEL-FEMA.pdf + fema story.pdf

S K Mittal Vs UoI (Dated: May 5, 2009)

FEMA – Penalty of Rs. 6.4 Crores imposed by Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange – Penalties imposed based on wife's assets not justifiable when no evidence to suggest that petitioner funded acquisition of properties – Petitioner to deposit Rs. 12.5 lakhs in three instalments in addition to Rs. 5 lakhs already deposited – Petitioner to file affidavit giving details of assets including bank accounts to Adjudicating Officer and an undertaking not dispose of assets without permission of Tribunal – Tribunal's order modified to this extent and to apply to all 178 appeals filed by petitioner: DELHI HIGH COURT:

2009-TIOL-109-SC-MISC.pdf

Pennar Industries Ltd Vs State Of A P And Ors (Dated: February 09, 2009)

It has become an unfortunate trend to casually dispose of stay applications by referring to decisions in Siliguri Municipality and Dunlop India cases without analysing factual scenario involved in a particular case: While granting stay pending disposal of the matters, though discretion is available, the same has to be exercised judicially. It is true that on merely establishing a prima facie case, interim order of protection should not be passed. But if on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. Petitions for stay should not be disposed of in a routine matter unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order requiring the assessee to deposit full or part of the demand. There can be no rule of universal application in such matters and the order has to be passed keeping in view the factual scenario involved. The forum/authority should not pass an order which cannot be sustained on the touchstone of fairness, legality and public interest. Where denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a citizens' faith in the impartiality of public administration, interim relief can be given. [Paras 5 and 7]: SUPREME COURT;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0873.pdf

RBI issues draft guidelines on Repo in corporate debt securities;

mbuzz0872.pdf

Economic slowdown hurts IP activity: WIPO;

mbuzz0870.pdf

IGI Airport seizes ketamine worth Rs one crore; pax heading for Bangkok arrested;

mbuzz0869.pdf

Raxaul Customs seizes 7 tonnes ganja worth Rs 134 lakhs; 3 persons arrested;

mbuzz0868.pdf

Power Minister lures global investors to power sector investments;

2009-TIOL-503-HC-DEL-IT.pdf + dgit story.pdf

Jaypee Institute Of Information Technology SocietyV s DGIT (Exemption), Delhi (Dated: August 21, 2009)

Income Tax – Deemed University imparting formal education along with extra mural, extension and field related programs eligible for exemption certificate under s. 10(23C)(vi) of IT Act, 1961 – Objectives included in MOA of assessee aligned with Model MOA as stipulated by UGC for obtaining recognition as Deemed University – Courses with the objective of greater interface with the society through ext ra mural, extension and field action related programmes are not objectives independent of education but are aids to education – Order passed by DGIT(Exemption) refusing exemption certificate quashed – Writ of Mandamus issued to DGIT(Exemption) to grant exemption certificate :DELHI HIGH COURT ;

2009-TIOL-575-ITAT-DEL.pdf

Sutlej Industries Ltd vs ACIT, Delhi (Dated: April 24, 2009)

Income Tax - Assessee Company, a member of AOP, claims set off on account of its share of losses in AOP losses - AO allows the losses - CIT issues notice u/s 263 proposing revision of assessment order - Held, considering the provisions of sections 67A, 86 and 167B, that both on the grounds that there are no provisions to carry forward or set-off of loss of AoP against the income of the members and also because of the provisions of section 167B, neither income nor the loss can be taxed or allowed as deduction in the hands of the member of AoP - Assessee's appeal dismissed.:DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-574-ITAT-MUM.pdf

ACIT Vs Shri Shreegopal Purohit (Dated: June 30, 2009)

Income Tax – Section 43(5) - Assessee set off the loss from speculation loss of the current year as well as brought forward speculation loss from income earned from F & O transactions considering the same as speculative income as per the definition of speculative transaction – AO treated the same as non speculative transactions as per the definition given in section 43(5) amended by Finance Act 2005 which as per AO is clarificatory in nature – CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee stating that without delivery F & O transactions are speculative in nature and amendment is applicable prospective – Held following the decision of Jaipur Bench in the case of P S Kapur (29 SOT 587), as the F & O transactions are intangible and are not capable of delivery or transfer, it does not satisfy the basic ingredients of section 43(5) and the amendment is clarificatory in nature. Revenue's appeal is allowed and the F & O transactions are not speculative transactions. :MUMBAI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1498-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Bhilwara Zila Ex-Serviceman Welfare Sahkari Samiti Vs CCE, Jaipur-II (Dated: July 16, 2009)

ST - limitation - Assessee alleges delayed OIO for late appeal filing - held, since the Revenue has received back the acknowledgement sent with the Order, no mala fide can be alleged against public authorities for delayed service of order unless the assessee has some materials to prove it - since the assessee has not been vigilant it missed the opportunity to file appeal in time - Assessee's appeal dismissed :DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1495-CESTAT-KOL.pdf

Advertising Corporation of India Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Kolkata (Dated: July 24, 2009)

ST - Advertising agency - Assessee procures advertisements and arranges space in media for the Indian Railwyas - works on commission basis - claims it is not an advertising agency - held, making arrangement for disply of advertisement is an advertising agency service, liable to service tax - however, since the assessee has pleaded financial hardship, limited pre-deposit ordered:KOLKATA CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1492-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CCE & CC, Vapi Vs M/s Harsiddhi Motors (Dated: July 27, 2009)

ST - limitation - Assessee alleges limition - Commissioner(A) finds SCN for period prior to amendment made vide Section 90 of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 (23 of 2004) which were made pari materia to the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act were issued without alleging suppression or fraud and rejects the Revenue's case - Since the Revenue fails to bring on record any evidence justifying invocation of extended period, there is no infirmity in the Commissioner(A) order - Revenue's appeal dismissed:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-108-SC-CX.pdf + grasim story.pdf

CCE, Indore Vs M/s Grasim Industries Ltd (Dated: July 30, 2009)

Central Excise – Valuation - Whether the concept of "Transaction Value" makes any material departure from the deemed normal price concept of the erstwhile Section 4(1 )( a) of the Act – Matter to be referred to Larger Bench: the following issues require consideration by a larger Bench:

1. Whether Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (as substituted with effect from 01.07.2000) and the definition of "Transaction Value" in Clause (d) of sub-Section (3) of Section 4 are subject to Section 3 of the Act?

2. Whether Sections 3 and 4 of the Central Excise Act, despite being interlinked, operate in different fields and what is their real scope and ambit?

3. Whether the concept of "Transaction Value" makes any material departure from the deemed normal price concept of the erstwhile Section 4(1 )( a) of the Act? : SUPREME COURT;

2009-TIOL-1496-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Dhandayuthapani Workshop Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: June 23, 2009)

Central Excise – Exemption Notification – Stay / Dispensation of pre-deposit - Where there are two exemption notifications covering the goods in question, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification which gives greater relief, regardless of the fact that the notification is general in its terms and the other notification is more specific to the goods. Prima facie, there is no dispute that the condition applicable to Sl.No.217 of the Table to Notification No.6/02-CE dt. 1.3.02 has been satisfied by the assessee. Stay granted. ( Para 2) :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-502-HC-CHHATISGARH-CX.pdf + excise story

M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: July 2, 2009)

Central Excise – Utilization of CENVAT Credit on iron and steel items of Chapter 72 – Failure to disclose quantum of steel utilized as inputs in manufacture/fabrication of capital goods – It is well-settled that in the matters of interlocutory orders, principle of binding precedent cannot be applied – No infirmity in Tribunal order declining to grant stay even when similar matter is pending before Larger Bench:CHHATISGARH HIGH COURT ;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-1497-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Sandeep Naik Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: June 1, 2009)

Excess Drawback claimed by exporter by showing higher value of export goods – Nexus to show that the blank invoices of the appellant were used to claim the excess draw back not forthcoming – no positive evidence against the appellant – penalty imposed u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 set aside and appeal allowed.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1493-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + Dyna story.pdf

M/s Dyna Enterprises Vs CC, Cochin (Dated: February 13, 2009)

Customs – Levy of anti-dumping duty on import of CFL lamps from China and Hong Kong – Notification for levy of anti-dumping duty only on goods classified under 8539.31 – Imported goods classified under 8539.10/8539.29 and assessment completed, no anti dumping duty leviable on impugned goods – Alternatively, issue of corrigendum after seven months substantially enhancing duty from Rs. 60 lakhs to Rs. 29.38 crores not covered under Section 154 of Customs Act which provides for rectification of clerical errors, hit by limitation – Impugned order set aside: BANGALORE CESTAT;