CAT sets aside CBDT Chairman's appointment & also Members' panels for 2008 and 2009; Directs ACC to draw up fresh panels within 90 days;

CBEC all set to give Diwali Gift to more than 100 Customs and Central Excise Superintendents; DPC form promotion to AC-level wrapped up last Friday;

TDS does wonder for CBDT but Board fails to do the same to TDS (See 'Breaking News')

SC Collegium puts on hold Karnataka HC CJ Justice Dinakaran's elevation on complaint from TN Govt;

Fighting cyber crime & economic offences become top priority for CBI;

PM rules out military action against naxalites;

Dr Manmohan Singh says NO to regulating salaries of CEOs in private sector;

EC bans publication of opinion polls / exit polls;

Sudesh Kumar takes over as Member (Electrical) of Railway Board;

Satyam Fraud case: ED attaches 247 properties of Raju; More likely; Court rejects bail plea again;

UN urges nations to look beyond self-interest to lock Climate Deal at Copenhagen;

TIOL COMMENTARY

stgst.pdf

GST going through pangs of birth!

TDS story.pdf

TDS does wonder for CBDT but Board fails to do the same to TDS

spl down.pdf

BAS - Production of excisable goods containing alcohol – Fate of Service Tax demands raised prior to 01.09.2009 in limbo

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0920.pdf

UN urges nations to look beyond self-interest to lock Climate Deal at Copenhagen;

2009-TIOL-616-ITAT-MAD.pdf

ACIT Vs M/s Speed-A-Way Pvt Ltd (Dated: April 16, 2009)

Income Tax - Section 36(1)(vii) - AO makes addition on the ground that assessee has not proven that the 'debts' had become 'bad' hence the decision of the assessee to write off the impugned debts is not bonafide - CIT(A) deletes addition - Held, it is true that a bonafide and honest judgment of the assessee in this regard cannot be questioned by the AO - But it has to be seen that the 'debts' were trade-debts and that the judgment of the assessee in respect of all the 'debts' was bonafide and honest - Matter remanded for afresh adjudication - Revenue Appeal allowed.:CHENNAI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-615-ITAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Power Finance Corpn Ltd Vs DCIT, New Delhi (Dated: June 25, 2009)

Income Tax - Sec 36(1)(viii) - Assessee, a PSU, claims deductions for interest paid on deposits, income from guarantee fee, upfront fee, management fee and agency fee - AO disallows - Held, following the order of the Tribunal passed in the case of the  assessee for earlier A.Y, the deduction u/s 36(1)(viii), in respect of income from interest on FDRs and income from guarantee fee is not allowable - The receipts of the upfront fee, management fee and agency fee are not the income derived from the business of long term financing and the same cannot be treated as part of the profits eligible for deduction u/s 36(1)(viii) - CIT(A) order upheld - Assessee's appeal partly allowed:DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-113-SC-IT.pdf

ACIT, Indore Vs M/s NEO Sack Private Limited (Dated: October 9, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 80IA - Is assessee entitled to Sec 80IA deduction on income without reducing the sum of export incentive from the same? - Since neither the HC nor the ITAT has answered this question of law, the case is remanded: Supreme Court;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1606-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Indore Vs M/s Hotline CPT Ltd (Dated: May 5, 2009)

Service tax – Service tax paid on outward freight available as CENVAT Credit in view of Ambuja Cement Ltd 2009-TIOL-110-HC-P&H-ST – No reason to interfere with Appellate Commissioner' order.: DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1605-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s ECIL Rapicscan Ltd Vs STC, Hyderabad (Dated: May 13, 2009)

Service tax – When J & K itself is outside purview of Finance Act, 1994 for service tax purposes, Rule 6 (3)(c) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 not applicable – Contracts for sales and AMC cannot be vivisected for levy of tax on sales commission – Prima facie case for full waiver of pre-deposit.: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1603-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Fenner India Ltd Vs CCE, Madurai (Dated: May 28, 2009)

Service Tax – Clearing and Forwarding agent service - the scope of the contract between the appellants and their client does not cast any obligation whatsoever on the appellants to provide clearing and forwarding services – the appellants are only sharing the facilities of marketing / distribution networks - demand of service tax not sustainable.: CHENNAI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1608-CESTAT-KOL.pdf +S A Plywood Story.pdf

M/s S A Plywood Industries Vs CCE, Siliguri (Dated: June 8, 2009)

Central Excise - Rectification of Mistake - Review - Scope  - The Tribunal can rectify mistakes only in respect of final orders passed under Section 35C(1) of the Act disposing of appeals and the power of rectification is not available to rectify interim or Miscellaneous Orders. To take a different view from the one taken by the earlier Bench, would amount to review of the Order of another Bench of the Tribunal and such power of review has not been vested in the Tribunal, nor can the same be exercised in the guise of rectification of mistake which can be resorted to only in the case of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Para 5 & 6)

Judicial Discipline - Judicial discipline requires that a Bench of the Tribunal should follow the ratio of the decision of a Superior Court in preference to the decision of a lower Court or Tribunal. (Para 6).: KOLKATA CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1607-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Red-Fab (P) Ltd Vs CCE, Hyderabad (Dated: April 21, 2009)

Central Excise – Manufacture and supply of pen stock pipes, radial gates, vertical lift gates for hydro electric projects – Only goods fabricated at factory liable to excise duty – Goods fabricated at site beyond jurisdiction of adjudicating authority, duty cannot be demanded– Matter remanded to recomputed duty liability and imposed penalty accordingly.: BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1604-CESTAT-MUM.pdf +alloy story.pdf

M/s C M Alloys Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Raigad (Dated: April 23, 2009)

Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit – CESTAT remands matter to Commissioner(A) after observing that there was sufficient cause which prevented the appellant from filing appeal in time with Commissioner(Appeals).:MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2009-TIOL-1609-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

TTK Healthcare Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: May 19, 2009)

Customs – classification of polypropylene mesh – the impugned goods are classifiable USH 58039090, but not under 9021 as claimed by the importer - The heading adopted by the authorities below namely CTH 58039090 is more appropriate as the goods are more akin to gauze covered under the above heading.: CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1602-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Worldwide Diamond Manufacturers Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam (Dated: May 11, 2009)

Customs – Godrej safe procured by 100% EOU manufacturing diamonds for storing raw and finished diamonds are ‘office equipment' – Eligible for procurement duty free against CT3 certificate under Notification 126/94 :BANGALORE CESTAT;