CBEC amends tariff value of brass scraps of all grades;

Mobile Number Portability extended by three more months;

CBEC notifies rules for determination of origin of goods for FTA with ASEAN and South Korea ;

India's external debt jumps by 8% by Sept-end;

MHA releases more funds for modernisation of police;

ACC approves appointments of Smt Bhupinder Prasad as Secretary, Dept of Law; R Gopalan as Secretary, Dept of Financial Services;

Govt gives nod for prosecution of former Congress MP Sajjan Kumar for alleged involvement in 1984 anti-Sikh riots;

Sahar Airport Customs arrests South African national with heroin;

Mr Prakash Chandra joins as new CBDT Member;

TIOL COMMENTARY

ddt 01 jan.pdf

What happened to India-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement?

editorial.pdf

Selection for foreign posts: CBEC Panel violates mandate given by Board;

stgst.pdf

Export of taxable services paradigm paralysis;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1175.pdf

Indian exports registers positive growth of 18.2% in November;

mbuzz1174.pdf

India's external debt jumps by 8% by Sept-end;

mbuzz1173.pdf

MHA releases more funds for modernisation of police;

mbuzz1172.pdf

Mobile Number Portability extended by three more months;

2010-TIOL-04-ITAT-MUM.pdf + star cruise story.pdf

DDIT, Mumbai Vs M/s Star Cruises (India) Travels Services Pvt Ltd (Dated: November 30, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 195, 5, 44B - Assessee is an Indian company, engaged in the business of providing travel and tour packages - enters into an agreement with M/s Star Cruises Management Ltd, of Isle of Man which has no DTAA with India - as per agreement, the assessee company sells cruise tickets to Indian customers, collects sale proceeds, deducts its own commission and remits the money to the non-resident company after taking RBI approval - the contracts for sale of tickets i.e. booking confirmations and printing etc. are from Malaysia- which is outside India- whether income of the non-resident company is chargeable to tax in India as per Sec 44B of the Act - whether the remittances are liable to TDS u/s 195:MUMBAI ITAT;

2010-TIOL-03-ITAT-BANG.pdf

ITO, Bangalore Vs M/s Iqura Technologies Pvt Ltd (Dated: August 21, 2009)

Income Tax – Sec 10A - assessee is engaged in software business - claims deduction – AO denies the same on the ground that the assessee company was already in existence and the newly formed unit was using the same assets – CIT(A) observes that AO miscalculated the fact and information given by the Assessee – observes that having obtained the eligibility for 100% EOU, assessee is entitled to claim benefit u/s 10A & 10B - held, deduction u/s 10A is available to existing units when conditions laid down in sec 10A(2)(A)(i)(b) and sec. 10A(2)(ii)and (iii) are fulfilled - Revenue's appeal dismissed.:BANGALORE ITAT;

2010-TIOL-02-ITAT-DEL.pdf

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vs ACIT, New Delhi (Dated: October 30, 2009)

Income Tax – Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Recording of satisfaction – A.O. had at the end of the assessment order specifically stated that penalty proceedings are initiated separately – Held that in view of the decision of Madhushree Gupta it would have to be held that the A.O. has recorded his satisfaction. AO levied penalty on Foreign TDS income for which was not offered to tax on gross basis - Held that the issue of exclusion from the total income the TDS in foreign countries was an issue which has been coming right from the Assessment Year 1974-75 and it has been a subject matter of substantial litigation. The breakup of the claim of the deduction was specified in the return of income and a note to the effect had also been enclosed along with the return of income – AO had disallowed the claim of the assessee by basically following the assessment order of the earlier year – Held that on mere disallowance of the claim cannot be said that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or concealed its income – Held further that though the claim of the assessee is not allowable on merits, still it does not fall within the mischief of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Income Tax Act – Section 275 – Limitation for levy of penalty – Held that the issue of disallowance of excess provision of interest tax was decided in the assessment order dated 28.11.2003 and this order has not been made a subject matter of appeal – Held that the period of limitation would apply from the assessment order in which the item was dealt with - Held that the penalty on the issue of the provisions of interest tax has been levied vide order dated 31.01.2006 which is beyond the period of limitation provided u/s 275(1)(c) of the Act in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Alagendran Finance Ltd. (2007-TIOL-136-SC-IT).:DELHI ITAT;

2010-TIOL-01-ITAT-DEL.pdf

DCIT, New Delhi Vs M/s Tel-Abridge International Ltd (Dated: September 11, 2009)

Income Tax - Sec 147, 271(1)(c) - Assessee company files loss return which is reopened - AO makes addition by holding that assessee has wrongly claimed expenses towards filing fee paid to ROC and stamp duty for the increase in authorized share capital as revenue expenditure and also imposes penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) deletes the penalty - Held, assessee has not explained as to why it has made the claim for expenditure in the return when similar expenditure claimed by the assessee was held to be capital in many earlier cases - claim of expenditure made by the assessee even against the law laid down by the Apex Court can be called to be ex-facie bogus and hence cannot be called bonafide - Revenue's appeal allowed.:DELHI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2010-TIOL-03-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Visranthi Builders Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated : September 10, 2009)

Service Tax – penalty – once the adjudicating authority held that the assessee was guilty of suppression, penalty is automatically attracted – Commissioner's revision order imposing penalties under Sections 76,77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 upheld.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-02-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Shri Daulat Ram Vs CCE, Indore (Dated : October 13, 2009)

Levy of man-power recruitment and supply of agency was introduced on 16.6.05 - appellant is an individual person and supplied man-power to the limited company - as soon as it has come to the knowledge of the appellant, he has paid the tax along with interest - original authority rightly invoked Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 and dropped penalty - CESTAT - Appeal allowed.:DELHI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-01-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s BSBK Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Raipur (Dated : October 30, 2009)

Appellants undertaking turn key projects - in terms of the contract with the steel plants, they provide three separate services namely, Consulting Engineer Service, Commercial & Industrial Construction Service and Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service - credit availed of input services falling the Consulting Engineer Service - Commissioner holding that the appellants are not eligible for the benefit of Notification No.1/06-ST dated 1.3.06 appears cryptic and does not deal with all the issues adequately with reference to the various submissions made by the appellants - Matter remanded by CESTAT:DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2010-TIOL-02-HC-MAD-CX.pdf + permit story.pdf

CCE, Chennai Vs M/s SRF Ltd (Dated: December 7, 2009)

Central Excise – Permission granted to clear goods without duty for processing – withdrawal of permission cannot be retrospective: In the communication dated 6.1.1992 the Assistant Collector, Trichur , while withdrawing its earlier permission dated 7.10.1991, specifically stated that such withdrawal would take effect immediately and that the parties should apply to the Collector of Central Excise, for permission. Therefore, there can be no dispute nor can the first respondent or the other tyre manufacturer, viz., Apollo Tyres can be faulted for their action based on permission letter dated 7.10.1991 which was in operation between the date of issuance viz., 7.10.1991 and its withdrawal on 6.1.1992.:MADRAS HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-06-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CCE, Trichy Vs M/s India Cements Ltd (Dated : October 15, 2009)

Central Excise – CENVAT Credit – credit is admissible on certified copies of the Bills of Entry and also on original invoices is allowed.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-05-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Palani Andavar Cotton And Syntehtic Spinners Ltd Vs CCE, Trichy (Dated : September 14, 2009)

Central Excise - SSI Exemption – Amalgamation of unit – Effective date – The scheme of amalgamation envisaged 01.04.2000 as the effective date, but the scheme of amalgamation was sanctioned by the High Court only on 28.07.2000, and the Registrar of Companies has allowed the amalgamation with effect from 16.05.2001. SSI exemption is not to be denied prior to 16.05.01. ( Para 3):CHENNAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-04-CESTAT-MUM.pdf

International Transmission Products Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai (Dated : October 1, 2009)

Payment of differential duty arising out of grant of escalation in price subsequent to clearance of goods - Payment of interest u/s 11AB mandated in view of Apex court judgement in CCE, Pune vs SKF India Ltd. 2009 TIOL-82-SC-CX .:MUMBAI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

cnt09_189.pdf

CBEC notifies rules for determination of origin of goods for FTA with ASEAN;

cnt09_188.pdf

CBEC amends tariff value of brass scraps of all grades;

cnt09_187.pdf

CBEC notifies rules for determination of origin of goods for FTA with South Korea;

CASE LAWS

2010-TIOL-01-HC-MUM-CUS.pdf + cus story.pdf

UoI Vs Customs And Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Kolkata (Dated: December 3, 2009)

Customs – export obligation could not be fulfilled due to cyclone destroying the unit – Interest on duty paid in terms of bond – Bond is a contract and contract is discharged where its performance becomes impossible. Revenue writ against Settlement Commission order dismissed – As party is excused of non-performance, if it proves that non-performance was due to an impediment beyond its control, and it could not have reasonably been foreseen by it at the time of making of the contract, nor could it have avoided or overcome it or its consequences. In other words due to act of god or act of nature, if the contract is frustrated party cannot be asked to perform the contract. The contract automatically stands determined and cannot be enforced through the legal process. Can Settlement Commission waive interest? Assuming that Settlement Commission has no power to grant immunity from the payment of interest but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Settlement Commission has no power to enforce the contract which is already frustrated or which does not exist in the eye of law.:BOMBAY HIGH COURT;