Union Cabinet approves policy norms for Headend-in-the-sky operators;

CCEA gives nod to addl investment of USD 70 mn by OGL in Brazil;

September marks smart recovery for economy; Industrial production up by 9.1% ;

RBI directs banks to compile list of terror funding entities;

Liechtenstein removed from OECD's Grey List;

Don't post CIT(A) as DR in ITAT - CBDT tells Chief Commissioners ;

Discussion Paper on GST - The Bikini Effect!

CBI court sentences three IOCL officials in corruption case;

Exports of India's goods and services to double by 2014: Commerce Minister;

TIOL RUN UP TO GST

gst bikini effect.pdf

Discussion Paper on GST – The Bikini Effect!

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 12 nov.pdf

Going to Bahrain? Don't carry Pan; Display Boards at Airports indicating items banned in Middle-Eastern countries;

cobweb.pdf

GST roll-out: State fiscal jingoists succeed in proving April 1 st as 'Fool's Day'!

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1022.pdf

CCEA gives nod to addl investment of USD 70 mn by OGL in Brazil

mbuzz1021.pdf

Union Cabinet approves policy norms for Headend-in-the-sky operators

mbuzz1020.pdf

September marks smart recovery for economy; Industrial production up by 9.1%

mbuzz1019.pdf

CBI court sentences three IOCL officials in corruption case;

2009-TIOL-616-HC-DEL-IT.pdf + sita story.pdf

CIT Vs Sita World Travel (India) Ltd (Dated: September 4, 2009)

Income Tax – Powers of High Court to condone delay when an appeal is filed u/s 260A of the I-T Act – Held, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hongo India (P) Ltd. ( 2009-TIOL-48-SC-CX-LB ) would not apply to income-tax matters. Section 260A of the Income-tax Act is not pari-materia with Section 35G of the Central Excise Act – Held, the High Court has requisite power to entertain an application for condonation of delay.:DELHI HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-615-HC-DEL-IT.pdf

CIT, Delhi-IV Vs Tony Electronics Limited (Dated: October 9, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 154(7) - AO passes assessment order - appeal goes to CIT(A) who grants partial relief - AO issues notice u/s 154 to disallow double counting of depreciation allowance by mistake - Tribunal holds the case is barred by limitation - held, Tribunal erred in calculating the limitation period from the date of original order whereas the words used in sub-section 7 are 'any' and 'order' which can be even rectification order passed later - given the fact that the original order ceases to exist once an appellate order is passed as per the principles of doctrine of merger, the time period for limitation is to be counted from the date when the order was passed for giving appeal effect to the case - Revenue's appeal allowed:DELHI HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-614-HC-P&H-IT.pdf

M/s Dewan Engineering Works Sirhind Vs CIT, Patiala (Dated: October 14, 2009)

Income tax - section 275(1)(a) , 271(1)(c) - AO initiates reassessment proceedings on the basis of materials found in the search - penalty proceedings also initiated - Assessee contends that it is beyond the period of limitation u/s 275 - CIT(A) and Tribunal dismiss the assessee's appeal - held, the assessee cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong - since the penalty proceedings were delayed on the request of the assessee which wanted to file an appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee now cannot use the same invoke limitation period - no substantial question of law involved - Assessee's appeal dismissed:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-613-HC-P&H-IT.pdf

CIT, Chandigarh Vs M/s Torque Pharmaceuticals Pvt Limited (Dated: October 15, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 31, 37, 251(1)(a) - Assessee is a pharma company - incurs expenditure on repair of building - AO disallows 50% expenditure by treating the same as capital in nature - CIT(A) enhances disallowance by treating the entire activity as capital expenditure - Tribunal restores the AO's order - held, it is settled law that correct tests are to be applied to examine the correct nature of expenditure - in principle, even capital expenditure can be a part of 'current repairs' - no substantial question of law involved - Revenue's appeal dismissed:PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1846-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + cummins story.pdf

CCE Vs Cummins Generator Technologies India Ltd (Dated : October 1, 2009)

Cenvat Credit allowed on Outdoor Catering Service in appeal by assessee - When there is no Cenvat Credit demand against the respondent, penalty cannot be imposed – CESTAT dismisses Revenue appeal.: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1845-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs M/s Malladi Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Ltd (Dated : August 7, 2009)

Service tax – no service tax liability as recipient of service provided by a foreign service provider during the period of dispute in view of Larger Bench ruling in Hindustan Zinc Ltd case: CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1844-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Korea Plant Service & Engineering Co Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur (Dated : September 4, 2009)

ST - Cenvat credit - Assessee operates outsourced thermal power plant for a company which uses electricity for its captive consumption - avails credit on coal handling charges and GTA services - Revenue denies it on the ground that the assessee was only doing repair and maintenance of the plant - held, since the assessee was operating a power plant, availing coal handling and transport of coal was essential for the operation - a fit case for stay of demand - assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1843-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

CCE, Vadodara-I Vs M/s Vulcan Gears (Dated : October 12, 2009)

ST - cenvat credit - assessee pays tax on outward transporation charges by utilising cenvat credit - Revenue disallows - held, since the assessee has proposed to end the litigation by paying the tax in cash and reversing the cenvat credit availed, albeit he knows that the issue is pending before the Larger Bench, it is a case of only procedural violation - Revenue's appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2009-TIOL-1842-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

Standard Alkali Vs CCE, Belapur (Dated : July 14, 2009)

Valuation u/s 4 of CEA, 1944 - Maintenance and operating charges of pipe line for supply of Hydrogen gas recovered from customers by raising debit notes - Pipeline is part of plant and machinery and such charges for pipe line will form part of cost of production upto factory gate hence includible in the assessable value – Pre-deposit ordered.: MUMBAI CESTAT;

CCE, Salem Vs M/s Kathiravan Pipes Pvt Ltd (Dated : September 3, 2009)

Central Excise – demand of duty on clandestine removals based on the note book maintained by the excise clerk – matter remanded to allow cross examination of the excise clerk.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1840-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Raipur Vs M/s Jairam Phosphates Ltd (Dated : Febuary 27, 2009)

Central Excise – Clearance of goods clandestinely to sister unit admitted and duty paid with interest before issue of SCN – Penalty to be 25% of duty in terms of Delhi High Court judgement in K P Pouches Pvt Ltd vs. UOI & Ors 2008-TIOL-240-HC-DEL-CX – Appellate Commissioner's order imposing higher penalty set aside:DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

ctariff09_125.pdf

CBEC amends 21/2002 to extend time period for item listed against Sr No 38BB;

ctariff09_124.pdf

Govt imposes definitive anti-dumping duty on fully oriented yarn / flat yarn of polyester;

dgft09pn016.pdf

Amendment of para 2.63(ii) of HBP Vol.I regarding RCMC;

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-1839-CESTAT-BANG.pdf + lanyard story.pdf

M/s Lanyard Foods Ltd Vs CCE, Bangalore (Dated : March 5, 2009)

Customs – Allegation of non-compliance of exemption notification issued under IGCRDMEG Rules due to diversion of goods imported at concessional rate of customs duties – When declarations for receipt and consumption of imported goods filed by assessee are accepted by jurisdictional central excise authorities and bonds are cancelled by proper authority after verification of documentation, willful suppression and mis-statement of facts cannot be alleged to invoke extended period – Cross examination of key witnesses not facilitated resulting in violation of principles of natural justice – When facts emerging out of investigations are juxtaposed with verification/cancellation of bonds, prima facie it can be inferred that there is collusion between assessees and departmental officers – Not invoking ground of collusion and non-issuance of show cause notices to departmental officers renders show cause notices defective – Demand arising from defective show cause notice not sustainable – Impugned order set aside:BANGALORE CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1838-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Menon Technical Services Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated : August 4, 2009)

Customs – classification – the impugned machine is a tobacco sorting machine but not tobacco processing machine and is rightly classifiable under 84.33 as contended by the assessee. Valuation – the price shown in the invoice is DDP Guntur and can not be treated as FOB price. The Customs officials should be familiar with words like FOB, CIF, DDP – impugned order set aside.:CHENNAI CESTAT;