Treatment of like products in anti-Dumping matters (See 'Common Basket')

Ceramic tiles - Bar is on credit of inputs, not input services (See 'Common Basket')

Combined Revenue Board - Move challenged in High Court (See 'Common Basket')

CBDT extends return filing deadline from Sep 30, 2009 to Oct 31, 2009 for Pune, Sangli and Kolhapur;

Advance authorization holder can supply intermediate goods to another Advance authorization holder manufacturer;

Customs Exchange rates for October notified;

SC orders no worship places to be built on public land;

CBI Court sentences Chennai Central Excise Suptd to 3 years RI in graft case;

Govt moves SC to withdraw all cases against Bofors accused Quattrocchi;

China calls for greater global cooperation than protectionism by developed countries to overcome financial crisis;

Oil exporting gulf nations lost USD 350 billion in Global crisis last year: UN;

No evidence of naxals getting aid from China and Pak: Chidambaram;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 29 sept.pdf

Income Tax Returns – Tomorrow is due date – Will CBDT extend it?

guest.pdf

Treatment of like products in anti-Dumping matters;

tiol top.pdf

Government Budgets and Global Economic Crisis!

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0892.pdf

For the G20 to be effective and legitimate, it is not enough for leaders to confer and make general exhortations – Singapore Foreign Minister;

mbuzz0891.pdf

New agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions - UN initiative;

cbdt_press_release.pdf

CBDT extends return filing deadline from Sep 30, 2009 to Oct 31, 2009 for Pune, Sangli and Kolhapur;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-517-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

Anurena Tristar Vs ITO (Dated: September 14, 2009)

Income tax - Section 32(1)( iia ) - Assessee claims additional depreciation of 15% for installing new machinery in the unit - AO, CIT(A) and Tribunal disallow the same - held, since the parts of the machinery were old and used, by merely using improved technical methods cannot make the machine new - Assessee's appeal dismissed:DELHI HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-516-HC-KAR-IT.pdf + share story.pdf

Assessee buys shares at Rs. 220 (when market price was Rs. 70) and sells them at Rs. 129 for a personal settlement by Directors – Loss not admissible; need of the individual directors cannot be elevated to the status of the need of the company: the purchase of shares by the assessee-company at a price of Rs 220/- per share against the market price of Rs 70/-, was definitely not either as a normal business transaction of the assessee nor for any exigency of the business requirement of the assessee-company. There cannot be any two opinions that the need of the individual directors cannot be elevated to the status of the need of the company. It is obvious that the directors are using their position in the company to further their own needs and requirements.

If the company is claiming to be a company carrying on business in trading shares and stocks, while any purchase in the normal course and from the market, whether the company acquires at a price, high or low, nevertheless, if constituted part of the business of the company and business transactions of the company, but an acquisition of share, at a value far higher than the market value when the shares otherwise were available at Rs 70/- per share, but paying Rs 220/- per share to purchase them only from a particular seller cannot be construed as any part of the business transaction of the assessee-company.:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-591-ITAT-MUM.pdf + morgan story.pdf

M/s Morgan Stanley Asset Management Inc Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: August 11, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 139(9) and 292B - Assessee is an FII, having sub-account called A/C Morgan Stanley India Investment Fund Inc - files return - then revises return - total income consists of interest and dividend - assessee claims set off for losses under the head 'capital gains' - AO finds the verification of return was not done in accordance with the law - points out defects which are not enumerated in the list provided u/s 139(9) - also takes the view that provsions of Sec 292B not applicable in this case - holds that the returns filed are invalid and non est - CIT(A) dismisses the appeal on the ground that power of attorney given by the non-resident was not notorised by any authority of that country - held, types of defects enumerated in Sec 139(9) are only inclusive, and not exhaustive - Even if there are some other defects or irregularities, apart from those mentioned in the Explanation to Sec 139(9), which are merely in the nature of non-compliance of certain formalities or some irregularities, those will still be considered as impliedly included in section 139(9) and the return not fulfilling such requirements will become defective and not invalid;

++ there is no substance in the Assessee's plea that filing return in a wrong form is not a serious deficiency as long as the facts are correctly disclosed. If the assessee's plea is accepted it would result in a chaos as the I-T Act prescribes different types of Forms for different classes of taxpayers, and if all the assessees begin filing returns in their choice Forms, it would defeat the very reason for providing different Forms as per the Act. AO directed to issue defect memo to the assessee and give a fair opportunity to rectify the same - the AO's decision to invalidate defective returns not sustainable:MUMBAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-590-ITAT-BANG.pdf

ITO, Mysore Vs Shri M B Ramesh (Dated: June 19, 2009)

Income Tax - Assessee, HUF, furnished a loss return by claiming exemption u/s 54F for having purchased residential property from capital gain arisen on sale of property - AO held assessee had not declared the CG accruing on the transfer of the property resorting to incorrect computation - CIT(A) allowed exemption u/s 54F but held the indexation was done wrongly by the assessee - Held, assessee was not entitled to exemption u/s 54F because no pertmanent structure was built and there was no other sign of any house /foundation on the site mentioned by the assessee which did not have the look of a well developed and maintained - Revenue's appeal allowed. :BANGALORE ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1538-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s G B Engineering Enterprises Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated: July 21, 2009)

Service Tax – Stay / dispensation of pre-deposit - Intellectual property Service – Royalty paid to foreign service provider – service tax is payable though payment was made before the levy of service tax - royalty is a continuing / ongoing service even after 10/9/2004 – pre-deposit ordered. :CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1537-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CST, Ahmedabad Vs M/s Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Dated: August 12, 2009)

ST - Recipient of service - Assessee receives services from non-resident - Assessee refers to Larger Bench decision in the case of Hindustan Zinc resolving the dispute - Revenue argues appeal has been filed against the order - held, since the Revenue's appeal has been dismissed by the Apex Court, appeal does not survive :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1536-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Inductotherm (India) Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Ahmedabad (Dated: August 3, 2009)

ST - Consulting Engineering service - SCN is issued for levy of tax on erection and commissioning charges and also royalty charges - Commissioner(A) remands the issue and also observes that there are certain other payments made to non-resident and the same are leviable to tax - held, Commissioner(A) cannot expand the scope of appellate proceedings - issue remanded for fresh examination - assessee's appeal allowed:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1533-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Shri M Ramakrishnan Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: July 17, 2009)

Service Tax – Commercial or Industrial construction service – the plea that the service was rendered to Government organization was not raised before the adjudicating authority – no prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

NOTIFICATION

exnt09_23.pdf

Advance authorization holder can supply intermediate goods to another Advance authorization holder manufacturer;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-518-HC-MAD-CX .pdf

CCE, Pondicherry Vs CESTAT (Dated: July 23, 2008)

Central Excise – Transfer of balance CENVAT Credit from one factory to another due to shifting of factory – Stock of inputs not available as already put to use and genuineness thereof verified to the satisfaction of Deputy Commissioner – Denial of transfer of credit by department on the ground that stock of inputs not available for transfer extraneous to statutory provision in Rule 10 of CENVAT Credit Rules – Tribunal's finding in accordance with statute: MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-1542-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + D-Link story.pdf

D-Link (I) Ltd Vs CCE, Goa (Dated: August 11, 2009)

Undervaluation of dutiable IT peripherals by overvaluing the non duty paid driver software – 30% of the duty amount deposited before Commissioner(A) suffices the requirement of pre-deposit in terms of earlier order dated 10.04.2008 – CESTAT grants stay.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1541-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + iocl story.pdf

Indian Oil Corpn Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai-II (Dated: August 13, 2009)

Settlement of case before the Settlement Commission and being granted immunity from penalty and prosecution – whether supplementary invoices issued are centavable – CESTAT grants Stay by waiving pre-deposit of Rs.14.7 Crores.

Tribunal's observations –

“5. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that, prima facie , the appellant has made out a good case on the strength of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise at Chennai in favour of the same company and on the same issue in the light of the same order of Settlement Commission. It appears, the Commissioner's order was not appealed against. The Commissioner categorically held that, where immunity was granted by the Settlement Commission to the input-supplier against penal liability under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, it was not correct to deny the Cenvat credit in respect of such goods to the manufacturer of final products where the latter claimed the benefits on the basis of supplementary invoices issued by the input supplier. This decision of the Commissioner at Chennai squarely covers the issue involved in the present case, in favour of the appellant. Inasmuch as there is no appeal of the department against the said order of the Commissioner, we have no option but to grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the dues adjudged against the appellant. It is ordered accordingly.”:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1540-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Mahendra Fabrics Vs CCE, Ahmedabad (Dated: June 4, 2009)

Central Excise – Procurement of neck cut & embroidered cloth for kurta, cut piece for pyjama and dupatta in packed condition from job workers for sale not liable to duty – In the absence of specific provisions in central excise law, burden of duty cannot be shifted on principal – Duty demand and penalties set aside :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1539-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vs CCE, Daman (Dated: August 4, 2009)

Central Excise - Test of marketability - Physician Samples - The sale of Physician Samples being banned under Drugs Act, carries no weight inasmuch as the prohibition of sale of goods in terms of particular Act would not mean that said product is not capable of being sold. (Para 3)

Rectification of Mistake - Review of order - Review of an order which is palpably erroneous, passed under mis -apprehension is allowed. However, a conscious decision passed by Tribunal after appreciating the submissions made by both sides cannot be subjected to review. Rectification of mistake application is relatable only to those mistakes which are apparent from the facts of the record. Conclusions arrived at after a long drawn process of arguments by both sides, cannot be held to be falling within arena of mistake so as to rectify the same. (Para 4):AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1534-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + capital story.pdf

CCE & CC, Nashik Vs Capital Foods Ltd (Dated: August 25, 2009)

'Chilli Vinegar' is correctly classifiable under heading 2203.00 of CETA, 1985 – ROM application filed by Revenue succeeds in CESTAT:MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt09_146.pdf

Customs Exchange rates for October notified;

ctariff09_108.pdf

Customs Duty reduced for textiles under SAFTA;

ctariff09_107.pdf

Customs duty reduced under SAFTA;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-1535-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CC, Ahmedabad Vs M/s Chandan Exports (Dated: June 12, 2009)

Customs - Import - Classification - Aluminum Plates (composite and both sides coated) - Stay - A similar issue is before the Tribunal in Chennai also. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given proper reasoning for his conclusion and at this stage of hearing, for the purpose of stay, it would not be possible to go into all the details required for classification. Prima facie, the Revenue has failed to make out a case for grant of stay.  (Para 5) :AHMEDABAD CESTAT;