Anti-dumping duty on ceramic tiles other than vitrified tiles - definitive duty imposed before expiry;

Circular No. 824/1/2006-CX-Clarification regarding prospective implementation of orders – regarding;

Haryana demands special funds for NCR;

Customs exemption - fertilisers inputs given benefits;

DGCEI Hqs tightens noose over gutkha manufacturers;

INTERPOL to help FIFA set up international Task Force against illegal sports betting;

TIOL RUN UP TO GST

gst article.pdf

GST – A challenge in itself;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 4 dec.pdf

Anti-dumping duty on ceramic tiles other than vitrified tiles – definitive duty imposed before expiry;

spl down.pdf

Various aspects of territorial jurisdictions;

CASE LAW

2009-TIOL-653-HC-DEL-FEMA.pdf

Anil Rao Vs UoI (Dated: November 23, 2009)

FEMA - Writ - pre-deposit - appellant, an NRI, comes back to India but maintains foreign bank account outside India - Search by Income Tax Authorities - bank account outside India without RBI permission detected - assessee claims it had written to the RBI to close the close the foreign currency account - Respondent argues that such a letter was sent to the RBI only after the account was found during the income tax search - FEMA Tribunal directs 25% pre-deposit of penalty amount - held, going by the exchange rate in 1996 and in current year, there is a difference of Rs 10 lakh in the sums, and a pre-deposit of Rs 5 lakh is not burdensome - Appellant writ dismissed: DELHI HIGH COURT;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1086.pdf

DGCEI Hqs tightens noose over gutkha manufacturers;

mbuzz1085.pdf

INTERPOL to help FIFA set up international Task Force against illegal sports betting;

CBDT Order 177 2009.pdf

CBDT issues transfer order of 4 CCITs

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-124-SC-IT.pdf

CIT, Salem Vs M/s Sugavaneeshwara Spg Mills Ltd (Dated: November 16, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 37 - Is assessee entitled to deduction in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sri Mangayarkarasi Mills Private Limited (2009-TIOL-86-SC-IT) - Issue remanded to High Court without expressing any opinion on merits of the case: SUPREME COURT;

2009-TIOL-654-HC-MUM-IT.pdf

Breach Candy Hospital Trust Vs CCIT, Mumbai (Dated: August 24, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 10(23C)(via) - assessee is a registered company and also a registered public trust - it creates and maintains a hospital for philanthropic purposes - applies for renewal of exemption - Revenue rejects on the ground that the assessee has been generating surplus income and also undertaking activities like medical check-up for USA visa applicants with profit motive - held, cumulatively, the assessee has not generated any surplus over a period of time which the Revenue has failed to examine, and then providing medical check-up to US visa applicants at a concessional rate is not necessarily for profit motive as cross-subsidisation of different activities undertaken by the hospital is a normal practice. Philanthrophy does not necessarily mean free treatment to poor patients. Providing concessional treatment to those who cannot afford expensive treatment is also philanthrophy. Revenue has no case. Issue remanded for fresh examination:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-652-HC-MUM-IT.pdf

Dattaram Bhikai Telge Vs The Appropriate Authority (Dated: June 15, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 269UD(1) - Assessees are property owners having equal share - enters into a deal with property developers - files papers with the appropriate authority - SCN issued for takeover of the property by the Central Govt as the market value of the same was calculated to be higher than the consideration disclosed to the revenue authorities - Appropriate order issued - assessees go in writ - held, the Appropriate Authority has given conflicting and contrary findings in respect of net apparent consideration and the fair market value to be paid by the Government. It shows non-application of mind by the Appropriate Authority in passing the impugned order. Issue remanded for fresh consideration:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-754-ITAT-DEL.pdf

DCIT, Dehradun Vs M/s Dolphin Drilling Pte Ltd (Dated: October 26, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 44BB(1), 32 & Rule 115(1) - Assessee is a non-resident company, incorporated in Singapore - gives on hire its drillship to its sister concern for execution of ONGC contract - files loss return after claiming depreciation - AO rejects the assessee's books of account on the ground of improper method of translating business transactions into currency of accounting and estimates the income u/s 44BB(1) - CIT(A) allows the appeal - held, Clause 2(c) of the Explanation to Rule 115(1) provides that the exchange rate as on the last day of the relevant financial year is to be adopted for the purpose of conversion of income from profits and gains of business or profession into Indian Rupees. There is no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order

Depreciation on drillship u/s 32 - held, since the assessee has furnished relevant documents and established the ownership of the drillship, the CIT(A)'s findings are sustainable in allowing depreciation

Disallowance of expenses u/s 40(a)(i) - Matter restored to the AO to examine and allow the expenses incurred fully and wholly for the business.:DELHI ITAT;

2009-TIOL-753-ITAT-KOL-TM.pdf + tm story.pdf

Sri Bimal Kumar Roy Vs ITO, Kolkata (Dated: June 19, 2009)

The issue raised in ground no.1 taken by the assessee relating to disallowance of expenditure of Rs.3 ,20,380 /- is remanded back to the file of the AO with the direction that the assessee be given one further opportunity to establish before the AO with evidence that he maintained office at Kolkata for profession and expenditure claimed were incurred for the purpose of his profession. Thus, on this issue the orders of the authorities below are set aside. The AO is to pass a fresh order as per law, after giving the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

Ground no.2 taken by the assessee is allowed. The AO is directed to treat the income of Rs.50 ,000 /- as income from business.

Ground no.3 taken by the assessee is decided against the assessee. It is held that the amount of Rs.26 ,167 /- was rightly added by the AO. Therefore, the addition is sustained:KOLKATA ITAT (THIRD MEMBER) ;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2009-TIOL-1990-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + rubicon story.pdf

Rubicon Formulations Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & CC, Aurangabad (Dated : November 19, 2009)

Production of Alcohol based perfumes and pharmaceutical products on job work basis – No cause for paying Service Tax under BAS - view taken by the Revenue is not in keeping with the legislative intent underlying the definition of ‘business auxiliary service' and which was clearly brought out in the Board's Circular dated 27.10.2008 – CESTAT sets aside Rs.1.53 Crore demand.: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1989-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Bhardwaj Security Services P Ltd Vs CCE, Ghaziabad (Dated : August 7, 2009)

ST - Security Agency Service - Assessee pleads if statutory levies and taxes paid in relation to the service provided is excluded from the gross value, the sum deposited with the Revenue should be treated as sufficient to waive off pre-deposit - held, since the HC has taken lenient view in the case, waiver from pre-deposit granted: DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1988-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s ABB Ltd Vs CST, Bangalore (Dated :August 4, 2009)

Service Tax – Liability to pay service tax for taxable services received from outside India by recipients in India applicable only from 18.04.2006 – Issue no longer res integra – Impugned orders set aside: BANGALORE CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

CIRCULAR

excircular906.pdf

Circular No. 824/1/2006-CX-Clarification regarding prospective implementation of orders – regarding

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-650-HC-MUM-CX.pdf

Blue Star Ltd Vs UoI (Dated: October 15, 2009)

Central Excise – Interest - Once the duty was ascertained on 22nd March, 2002 no interest could have been demanded under sub-section (1) of Section 11AA in view of sub-section (2) as inserted in Section 11AA on 11th May, 2001:  The relevant date for commencement of time the interest would be from the date the duty is determined if not paid within three months. Once there be an order, setting aside the entire order of determination there is no ascertained duty payable. In the instant case, therefore, though there was original order passed on 14th June, 1993 that was set aside on 14th July, 2000. The matter was before the A.O., for fresh determination on which an order came to be passed on 22nd March, 2002 and consequently the duty came to be ascertained on 22nd March,, 2002. Duty was paid on 17th July, 2002. Once the duty was ascertained on 22nd March, 2002 no interest could have been demanded under sub-section (1) of Section 11AA in view of sub-section (2) as inserted in Section 11AA on 11th May, 2001.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-1987-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + sper story.pdf

M/s Super Tyres Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Panchkula (Dated : November 4, 2009)

When the appellant has chosen to deal in clandestine activity, the department is left with no alternative but to rely on the private records for working out the suppressed production and clandestine removal – CESTAT upholds Rs.2.76 crores demand. : DELHI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1986-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Trichy Vs M/s S A Safiullah & Co (Dated : August 19, 2009)

Central Excise – refund – limitation - if the duty is paid under protest by the manufacturer, the limitation of six months will not apply even to the purchaser of the goods – matter remanded to examine unjust enrichment.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2009-TIOL-1985-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

CCE, Pune Vs Wallams (I) Agro Products & Power Ltd (Dated : July 28, 2009)

Appellant reversing Cenvat credit on the basis of credit note received from supplier of inputs - later filing refund claim – Refund claim allowed by lower appellate authority by rejecting Revenue's contention of unjust enrichment based on SC decision Sahakari Khand Udyog Ltd. 2005-TIOL-48-SC-CX-LB and by holding that the appellants did not use that amount towards payment of duty hence no possibility of passing of duty to any customers proper in law - CESTAT.

Since no refund claim by supplier of the excise duty reversed by the respondent for the credit note, amount of duty paid on inputs by supplier remains the same hence the reversal of the amount was due to misunderstanding of law not involving any unjust enrichment – Impugned order upheld and revenue appeal is dismissed.: MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

ctariff09_130.pdf

Customs exemption - fertilisers inputs given benefits;

ctariff09_128.pdf

Anti-dumping duty on ceramic tiles other than vitrified tiles – definitive duty imposed before expiry

ctariff09_127.pdf

Anti-dumping duty on ceramic tiles other than vitrified tiles – definitive duty imposed before expiry

CASE LAWS

2009-TIOL-651-HC-MUM-CUS.pdf

A S Vasan & Sons Vs UoI (Dated: September 9, 2009)

Customs CHA Licence – cancellation of licence based on retracted statement and adjudication order set aside by CESTAT – Giving visiting card as CHA, even if it is misconduct, too insignificant to cancel licence: there was no material on record, that for except giving of the visiting card to the respondent no.2 himself at the time of hearing that the petitioner was using the visiting cards anywhere else and/or misrepresenting that they were still possessing CHA licence. Giving of the visiting card to respondent no.2 was even assuming if amounted to misconduct was too insignificant a thing warranting cancellation of the licence or its refusal of its renewal.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;

2009-TIOL-1984-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CC, Cochin Vs Shri Dilip Ghelani, Proprietor (Dated : February 2, 2009)

Customs – Imposition of fine and penalty at 10% and 5% respectively on value of imported second hand photocopiers upheld – No infirmity in Appellate Commissioners order: BANGALORE CESTAT;