Jewellery exports: CBEC lays down norms for supply of gold, silver and platinum by nominated agencies;

Sanjay Bansal of 1995 batch goes as Director in Deptt of Chemicals & Petrochemicals; CBEC issues order;

CBEC issues transfer order of 20 AC/DCs;

Union Minister takes stock of report on State Agrarian Relations;

UN Study calls for international pact to curb organ trafficking ;

FDI outflow goes down by 18% in Q1: RBI data;

HRD Minister proposes common entrance test for new Central Universities;

CBI raids 8 premises at Bhopal in AICTE case;

Cabinet Secretary organises special session on DTC & GST for all Secretaries to Govt of India at Vigyan Bhawan today; JS (TPL) Arvind Modi fumbles in answering many queries related to EET;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 14 oct.pdf

The Amazon Tax;

stgst.pdf

Contours of GST as perceived through public domain information;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0930.pdf

Union Minister takes stock of report on State Agrarian Relations;

mbuzz0929.pdf

UN Study calls for international pact to curb organ trafficking;

mbuzz0928.pdf

CBI raids 8 premises at Bhopal in AICTE case;

mbuzz0927.pdf

HRD Minister proposes common entrance test for new Central Universities;

2009-TIOL-627-ITAT-BANG.pdf + sun story.pdf

M/s Sun Microsystems India Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (Dated: August 21, 2009)

India-Singapore DTAA -Article 12(4)-Assessee is a subsidiary of a US-based Group of Companies - enters into agreement with its Group company in Singapore for procuring logistic services - Sec 195 - whether payment made for such services liable to TDS.:BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-626-ITAT-PUNE.pdf

Piaggio Vahicle Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT, Pune (Dated: May 29, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 32 - Assessee claims depreciation on goodwill asset - AO disallows and CIT(A) confirms the order - held, the assessee has consistently claimed that the payment represents the consideration for goodwill and other rights, facilities and business infrastructural assets. Assessee should be given an opportunity. Case remitted to the AO to follow the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in Skyline Caterers - Assessee's appeal allowed:PUNE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-625-ITAT-DEL.pdf

DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Nokia India Pvt Ltd (Dated: May 22, 2009)

Income tax - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - AO makes disallowance of various types of expenses and initiates penalty - CIT(A) does not agree - held, merely because some expenditures are disallowed, penalty cannot be imposed. Then, most of the disallowances are not sustainable, and therefore, no penalty is called for - Revenue's appeal dismissed:DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-624-ITAT-MUM.pdf

ACIT Central , Mumbai Vs Smt Jaya Bachchan (Dated: August 20, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 69C - Assessee is a cine artist - files return - revised return filed and claims deduction for estimated expenditure @ 30% on professional receipts - later, claim for expenditure withdrawn for lack of evidence to substantiate the same - Reassessment u/s 147 - Additions made by treating the withdrawn expenditure as undisclosed income - CIT (A) finds the AO had no additional facts to reopen the case and it is a case of change of opinion - held, since the Revenue had prima facie no material to justify the invocation of Sec 69C, no fault can be found with the CIT(A) order - Revenue's appeal dismissed:MUMBAI ITAT;

Order 214 of 2009.pdf

CBEC issues transfer order of 20 AC/DCs;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1634-CESTAT-KOL.pdf

CCE, Ranchi Vs M/s Giridhari Enterprises (Dated: July 30, 2009)

Service tax – Inclusion of re-imbursible amounts received from principals for transportation, communication, labour and electricity in value of taxable service – Appellate Commissioner had not examined terms of agreement to determine inclusion or exclusion thereof – Matter remanded for de novo consideration:KOLKATA CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1633-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Purnima Advertising Agency Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Ahmedabad (Dated: August 4, 2009)

Service tax – Selling of time slots on TV channels – Whether to levy service tax on entire amount collected from clients when broadcasters already pay service tax on the said activity or restrict levy only to commission/discounts received by assessees as advertisement agency – Prima facie , demand for of service tax by revenue amounts to levy of service tax on same amount twice – Strong case for waiver of pre-deposit:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1632-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + kirloskar power story.pdf

Kirloskar Power Equipments Ltd Vs CCE, Pune (Dated: September 17, 2009)

Appellants under bonafide doubt regarding their activity is a reasonable cause to not deposit the service tax in time - Penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 not imposable in view of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - CESTAT.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1631-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Kerala State Industrial Enterprises Ltd Vs CCE, Trivandrum (Dated: June 22, 2009)

Service tax – Handling of passenger baggage and terminal charges for export consignment not liable to service tax – Renting of premises for installation of x-ray machine to Airlines, assessee ordered pre-deposit:BANGALORE CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1630-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Metro Shoes Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai-I (Dated: September 1, 2009)

Demand of Cenvat credit of Rs.1.66 crores in respect of services used partly for manufacturing and partly for trading activity as well as used exclusively for trading activity - Claim for credit in former case was allowed [2007-TIOL-1138-CESTAT-Mum] and in later case was not allowed by the Tribunal in earlier appeal (2008-TIOL-417-CESTAT-MUM) – Pre-deposit ordered of Rs.20 lakhs for Stay. :MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1629-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

Devi Rubber Product Vs CCE, Trivandrum (Dated: May 22, 2009)

Central Excise – Remand order of Tribunal gave a specific direction to Commissioner for compliance while passing de novo order and computing duty – If Commissioner doesn't accept this he should go on appeal and not disregard directions – Full waiver of pre-deposit ordered and stay granted :BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1628-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Pune-I Vs M/s Bajaj Auto Ltd (Dated: August 20, 2009)

Balance Cenvat Credit of 50% on capital goods availed before installation - Findings of Appellate Authority based on Tribunal decision in Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs CCE, Raigad 2006-TIOL-608-CESTAT-Mum allowing such credit but pointing out that Revenue could have claimed interest for using such pre-mature credit - Ratio of the same is squarely applicable – Impugned order upheld and Revenue appeal rejected:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1627-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Nagpur Vs M/s Ambuja Cement Ltd (Dated: August 27, 2009)

Payment of duty erroneously on exempted goods whether makes them “other then exempted” – Notification 89/95-CE extended to waste and scrap by Tribunal – Petition for interim stay dismissed by Madras HC - Stay of present order sought – since similar stay application of revenue in another case was rejected, no case for stay - application rejected.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

CIRCULAR

cuscir09_028.pdf

Jewellery exports: CBEC lays down norms for supply of gold, silver and platinum by nominated agencies;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-541-HC-MUM-CUS.pdf + cus story.pdf

M/s Gawar Construction Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: September 29, 2009)

Customs – Seizure - Notice is required to be given to the person from whose custody the goods were seized even for granting extension of time to issue show cause notice – Seizure quashed: The person from whose custody the goods have been seized under section 110 of the Act is entitled to a notice under section 124 of the Act and is entitled for a reasonable opportunity of making a representation and reasonable opportunity of being heard before an order of confiscation of goods is passed. In the present case, admittedly no notice under section 110(2) read with 124 of the Act has been issued to the petitioner within a period of 6 months. In fact the notice has not been issued till today. Consequently, the continued detention of the goods seized beyond the statutory period of 6 months (which can be extended upto one year) under section 110(1) of the Act is illegal.

Even if a statute specifically excludes principles of natural justice, courts can consider the legality of the statute: It is axiomatic to say that where civil rights of a person are likely to be affected by an administrative or quasi judicial order, rules of natural justice require that the person affected be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the order is passed unless the statute under which the order is passed specifically excludes such opportunity. Even where the statute specifically excludes the opportunity of being heard, Courts would be entitled to consider the legality and constitutional validity of such a provision but, in any event, where the statute does not exclude their observance, the authority passing the order affecting civil rights of a person must follow the principles of natural justice which include giving of a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person affected.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-1635-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

K S Murugan Vs CC, Tuticorin (Dated: May 19, 2009)

Customs – Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Anti-dumping duty – recovery - a levy introduced retrospectively cannot be recovered under the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 – pre-deposit waived.:CHENNAI CESTAT;