Provisional anti-dumping duty on import of Nylon Tyre Cord Fabric from Belarus imposed (See Tariff 121);

Tariff value of brass scrap and poppy seeds revised (See NT 159);

CBDT transfers back OSDs posted in Board to field formations;

SC Judges relent on spirit of RTI Act; disclose movable and immovable assets on official website;

Koda case: Inome Tax DG says former CM not cooperating with sleuths; Koda hospitalised;

Detecting fake drugs: Govt introduces reward scheme for whistleblowers;

Negative trend continues unabated on exports front in September;

PM to sensitise Chief Ministers on Forest Rights;

UN Maritime Agency extends support to curb piracy off Somali Coast;

Govt not to use Army against Naxals: Antony;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 03 nov.pdf

Vigilance Awareness Week - The Annual Farce in Government Offices;

tiol policy insight.pdf

A tale of oil and gas reforms in India and Pakistan;

guest column.pdf

Recovery of interest on cenvat credit taken wrongly - is it legally valid?

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz0991.pdf

Negative trend continues unabated on exports front in September;

mbuzz0990.pdf

Detecting fake drugs: Govt introduces reward scheme for whistleblowers;

mbuzz0989.pdf

PM to sensitise Chief Ministers on Forest Rights;

mbuzz0988.pdf

UN Maritime Agency extends support to curb piracy off Somali Coast;

CBDT Order 156 2009

CBDT transfers back OSDs posted in Board to field formations;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-26-ARA-IT.pdf + ara story.pdf

Mrs Delna Rustum Boyce (Dated: October 28, 2009)

Income Tax – Advance Ruling - fruit based drink mixes/concentrates derived from fruit juice through various processes - business of processing, preservation and packaging of fruits or vegetables – eligible for deduction under sub-section ( 11A ) of section 80IB : the profit of the proposed undertaking of the assessee derived from its business of squeezing of juice from fruits and vegetables; extracting oil, emulsifying, homogenizing and / or spray drying it; adding preservatives and other additives to it and packaging it in compatible packs, is profit from the business of processing, preservation and packing of fruits or vegetables eligible for deduction under sub-section ( 11A ) of section 80IB ; Processing and preservation are two distinct expressions used side by side. Processing may be for the limited purpose of preservation of fruits without bringing about much change in the form of the fruit. But, ‘processing' in the context in which it occurs ought not to be confined only to the operations that would ensure the preservation of fruits as they are or in the form of slices. In other words, the expression should not be confined to minimal processing that would not change the identity of the fruit. If processing and preservation is to be confined only to fruits as such and not to the derivatives from the fruits, the benefit intended to be given to agro-processing industries will operate in a very limited sphere, thereby defeating the very object of the provision.:ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY;

2009-TIOL-590-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

CIT Vs M/s MMTC Of India (Dated: October 23, 2009)

Income tax - Reference application - Revenue argues the assessee being a public sector undertaking should have sought CoD clearance before filing a reference - held, the right to file a reference is conferred by the statute, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the ONGC case ( 2002-TIOL-196-SC-CX ) does not seek to take away this right. An approval from CoD for filing the reference is not a pre-requisite. Had it been the case, even the Revenue would have required such a perimission from the CoD to file this petition - Revenue's appeal dismissed:DELHI HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-589-HC-KAR-IT.pdf

CIT, Bangalore Vs J G Lovoie (Dated: July 14, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 10(6)(viia)(II) - Assessee is a non-resident - renders services as a technician to one of the Govt agencies - claims exemption on the basis of his entry into India in 1990 - AO disallows it by arguing that the assessee had entered into India earlier in 1988 also and re-entered in 1993 again after 1990 and the benefit available for 48 months to be counted from 1993 - Tribunal takes the view that the relevant date which has to be reckoned for the purpose of the assessee's claim for exemption is 12.09.1990 which the assessee has claimed for the exemption - held, the date which is to be reckoned for claiming benefit is to be decided by the assessee. Once such a date is decided by the assessee, the limiting factor which operates on the assessee is that the benefit can be claimed only upto next 48 months or cannot be extended. It is for the assessee to claim the benefit from a given date so long as the exemption provision is available and the assessee otherwise qualifies for the initial exemption. Thereafter, the assessee can continuously claim the benefit for the following 48 months irrespective of his status which can change. Tribunal order upheld. Revenue's appeal disallowed:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-683-ITAT-BANG.pdf

Sri T V Venkatarathna Vs ACIT, Mysore (Dated: June 5, 2009)

Income Tax – Assessee claims exemption u/s 54F on account of investment made in the house – housing loan – capital gain arising out of sale of certain units – Assessee used certain amount from salary account for construction of house – AO holds that the Assessee has not utilized the capital gain for purpose or construction of new asset - hence claim for deduction rejected - claim for certain expenses for consultation services u/s 57(iii) was also disallowed – CIT(A) upholds the order passed by AO – Tribunal observes that utilization of the same funds is not necessary – the cost of construction of the house is more than the loan taken – hence deduction u/s 54F is allowed – claim u/s 57(iii) is disallowed as the same are the part his employment – Appeal partly allowed. :BANGALORE ITAT;

2009-TIOL-682-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Preroy A G Vs DDIT, Mumbai (Dated: October 6, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 9 - DTAA - Assessee files miscellaneous application for rectification of mistake on the ground that the Tribunal has errorneous remanded the issue to the AO for examining taxability whereas the same is already done by the AO - held, appeal allowed as there is error apparent in the order which is to be rectified - order recalled for fresh hearing - Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1770-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Mastermind Classes Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Indore (Dated: August 17, 2009)

Service tax – Services not liable to tax unless expressly provided by law – ‘Service to be provided' liable to tax only from 16.06.2005 – Application fees cannot be equated to franchisee fees, not liable to be taxed – Franchisee fees and royalty not liable to tax prior to 16.06.2005 – Matter remanded to Appellate Commissioner to re-determine tax liability and penalty after considering documentary evidence:DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1769-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Sharadha Terry Products Ltd Vs CCE, Salem (Dated: April 30, 2009)

Service Tax - Services received outside India - Date of Tax liability - After the enactment of Section 66A, a person who is resident in India or has business in India becomes liable to pay service tax when he receives services outside India from a person who is non-resident or is from outside India. Before enactment of Section 66A it is apparent that there is no authority vested by law to levy service tax on a person who is resident in India, but who receives services outside India. (Para 3):CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1768-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CCE & CC, Vadodara Vs M/s Ram Krishna Travels Pvt Ltd (Dated: July 29, 2009)

Service tax – Reversal of actual amount of CENVAT Credit sufficient to claim abatement in terms of Notification 1/2006-ST – Apex Court judgment in Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt Ltd 2002-TIOL-41-SC-CX followed:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1776-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + steag story.pdf

M/s Steag Encotec India Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: October 8, 2009)

Notification 6/2006-CE - Software has to be developed from the basic building blocks whereby a new software product should emerge as per the specific requirement of the client so as to qualify itself as custom designed software – CESTAT upholds Rs.1 Crore demand.

If there is any doubt or ambiguity, the Hon'ble Apex Court [ 2002-TIOL-89-SC-CX ] rules that exemption, being an exception, the benefit should go to the State.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1775-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Mysore Cements Ltd (Heidelberg Cement Group) Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated: May 6, 2009)

Central Excise – Cement cleared to construction industry in 50 kg bags not required to affix RSP eligible for benefit of exemption notification 4/2006-CE as amended – Impugned order set aside :BANGLORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1774-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Lucky Plast Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur-I (Dated: May 11, 2009)

Central Excise – Penalty under Section 11AC leviable when clandestine removal is established – Since duty is paid before issue of SCN penalty of 25% only leviable:DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1773-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CCE & CC, Vapi Vs M/s Kraft Tech Products Inc (Dated: June 19, 2009)

Central Excise – Goods supplied in bulk free of cost not liable for assessment under Section 4A – No infirmity in impugned order of Appellate Commissioner – No merits in revenue appeal:AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

ctariff09_121.pdf

Provisional anti-dumping duty on import of Nylon Tyre Cord Fabric from Belarus imposed;

cnt09_165.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s E.S.Enterprises ;

cnt09_164.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s Nalin @ Bakul Zaverilal Mehta ;

cnt09_163.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s Vuppalamritha Magnetic Components Limited ;

cnt09_162.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s Jindal Fine Industries;

cnt09_161.pdf

Adjudicating authority notified for M/s Jai Balaji Industries Limited;

cnt09_159.pdf

Tariff value of brass scrap and poppy seeds revised;

DGFT PUBLIC NOTICE

dgft09pn015.pdf

Exports under Authoriation Scheme: DGFT prescribes value addition norms

DGFT CIRCULAR

dgft09cir014.pdf

Constitution of an Inter-Ministerial Committee to redress/resolve problems/issues of exporters- Constitution reg

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-591-HC-KAR-CUS.pdf + agro story.pdf

CC, Bangalore Vs M/s Agrotech Foods Ltd (Dated: August 27, 2009)

Customs – Applicability of doctrine of unjust enrichment to refund of duty paid whether at the stage of provisional assessment or final assessment to be decided only based on facts and evidences of duty incidence being borne by assessee – Tribunal order remanding matter to original authority to sanction refund of duty paid on higher tariff value not based on proper evaluation of facts – No finding as to whether goods are assessed provisionally or finally – Order set aside and matter remanded to original authority to ascertain stage of assessment of goods and whether refund claim subject to limitation or whether duty incidence is borne by assessee before refund is sanctioned :KARNATAKA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-1772-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s P P Products Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: July 6, 2009)

Customs – Refund – Refund of bond interest on warehoused goods is not hit by bar of unjust enrichment.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1771-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd Vs CC, Mumbai (Dated: July 7, 2009)

Clearance of Import of hydrogenated vegetable oil not conforming to PFA standards allowed by High Court on payment of appropriate duty, redemption fine and penalty - no pronouncement on any issue relating to quantum of fine and penalty – R.F imposed of Rs.2.5 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh is reasonable – Appeals dismissed.:MUMBAI CESTAT;