How long cheap money in markets lasts? (See 'Breaking News')

IGI Airport suffers severe flight disruption; RVR equipment being shifted from Pune to restore normalcy in Delhi

Fixation of brand rate of Drawback for HSD supplied by DTA Cos to EoUs: DGFT extends deadline for applications;

On CBI tip-off Nepal Police arrests former Minister's son with FICN worth Rs 20 lakh;

China lays Ground Work to control Dragon;

India emerges second largest producer of crude steel;

CVC advises imposition of major penalty against two each from CBEC & CBDT in November, 2009;

TIOL COMMENTARY

indranil article.pdf

How long cheap money in markets lasts? ;

china story.pdf

China lays Ground Work to control Dragon;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1179.pdf

It was 'trap-the-corrupt' year for Mumbai CBI;

mbuzz1178.pdf

India can emerge leader only through science & technology: PM;

mbuzz1177.pdf

India emerges second largest producer of crude steel;

mbuzz1176.pdf

CVC recommends major penalty against 113 officers in Oct, 2009;

2010-TIOL-06-ITAT-DEL.pdf

Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd Vs CIT, New Delhi (Dated: October 16, 2009)

Income Tax - Section 263- CIT(A) invokes jurisdiction u/s 263 on three grounds i.e. (a) project expenses allowed by the AO is not allowable because it relates to project which is yet to take off, (b) Deduction u/s 10B not allowable because assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80HHE in earlier years - CIT  refers to provisions of sub-section (5) to say that the same debars deduction under any provisions once the deduction is claimed u/s 80HHE; (c) In respect of Foreign Exchange fluctuation loss, AO is wrong in restricting such disallowance to the extent as against the total disallowance in this respect - Held , in view of the decision of the Tribunal in for the A.Y 2003-04 the decision of the Tribunal related to item (a) and (b) will apply motatis-mutandis to the present year - CIT was wrong in invoking power u/s. 263 as the AO's Order u/s. 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In respect of item no.3, in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd which. has been confirmed by Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd, the power u/s. 263 was not rightly invoked by l CIT as assessment order passed by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Assessee Appeal allowed. :DELHI ITAT;

2010-TIOL-05-ITAT-BANG.pdf

ACIT, Bangalore Vs M/s Srinivasa & Brothers (Dated: July 24, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 132 - Assessee is a partnership firm having two partners – search conducted and certain documents seized – notice u/s 158 BD & 142(1) to tax undisclosed income - Assessee contends that notice is illegal as no reliable material found in the course of search – AO rejects the plea – CIT(A) holds notice was issued without satisfaction being reached and recorded - held, no infirmity in CIT(A) order as the satisfaction contemplated under sec 158BD is a judicious one and not subjective and the same has to be recorded - Appeal filed by Revenue dismissed. :BANGALORE ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2010-TIOL-12-CESTAT-AHM.pdf

M/s Polad Traders Pvt Ltd Vs CST, Ahmedabad (Dated : December 2, 2009)

ST - C&F Agent Service, franchisee service and BAS - Assessee submits it acts as C&F Service and certain expenses like electricity charges, salary and telephone charges are reimbursed and the same is not taxable - assessee also sells Salt of M/s Tata Chemicals and earns incentive - Revenue for tax under BAS - assessee argues it is an incentive for sale and not sales promotion - held, the assessee has prima facie made a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit : AHMEDABAD CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-07-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Sri Sai Krishna Travels Vs CCE, Visakhapatnam (Dated : September 8, 2009)

Service Tax – Providing own vehicles or vehicles procured from others with driver and fuel and collecting charges on per km basis not rent-a-cab service – CESTAT decision in R. S. Travels 2008-TIOL-1311-CESTAT-DEL followed – Impugned order set aside :BANGALORE CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2010-TIOL-13-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + whisper story.pdf

Ashpra Textiles Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Mumbai-II (Dated : October 23, 2009)

There is no allegation in the Show Cause notice let alone a whisper that the noticee acted with intent to evade payment of duty – Larger period of limitation not invokable – CESTAT.:MUMBAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-11-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Mechanical Constructors Vs CCE, Bhopal (Dated : August 5, 2009)

Central Excise - non-payment of duty on storage tanks - Bonafide belief - It is necessary for the appellants to appraise themselves of the correct position in law in relation to their duty liability. Merely on fanciful imagination the appellant is not entitled to assume that he had no liability to pay the duty. The appellants were paying duty in relation to similar storage tanks manufactured for other parties. In this background, it was necessary for the appellants to disclose the ground for distinguishing the work of manufacture of the storage tanks for IOCL from others. No material is placed on record in this regard. Demand of duty and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC upheld. :DELHI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-09-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + godrej story.pdf

M/s Godrej Hershey Ltd Vs CST, Bhopal (Dated : July 10, 2009)

Financial losses cannot be justification either to defeat the Revenue's claim or even avoid it – CESTAT orders pre-deposit:DELHI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-08-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CCE, Hyderabad Vs M/s Hetero Drugs Ltd (Dated : July 30, 2009)

Central Excise – Eligibility of exemption notification 4/2006-CE for clearance of 'lopinavir' as bulk drug without following procedure prescribed under Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 – Assessee forced to clear drug without certificate since buyer's jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner informed that certificate was not necessary – As per Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995, 'drugs' include 'bulk drugs' – Lopinavir also listed in List 3 of Notification No.21/2002-Cus, entitled to unconditional exemption under Sl.No.47(A) of notification 4/2006-CE – Revenue has not made out a case that impugned drug was not further used in manufacture of medicines – Impugned order sustained :BANGALORE CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

CIRCULAR

dgft09cir020.pdf

Extension of time for filing of applications for fixation of Brand Rate of Duty Drawback for High Speed Diesel (HSD) supplied by domestic oil companies to EOU's prior to issue of Notification No. 20 dated 17.8.05.;

CASELAW

2010-TIOL-10-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s Antarix Exim Trade Links Vs CC, Tuticorin (Dated : September 8, 2009)

Customs - Import – Mis-declaration of description, quantity and value – Confiscation - Penalty – The submission of the appellant that the declaration was given as per the invoice and the goods sent by the foreign supplier did not conform to the purchase order is without much force as the appellants have not rejected the goods nor returned the same to the foreign supplier but have cleared the same after paying necessary customs duty, fine and penalty. Cases of mis-declaration in regard to description, weight and value constitute serious offence under customs law. Confiscation of the impugned goods and enhancing the value is sustained. The redemption fine and penalty being on the lower side also do not require any reduction. (Para 4) : CHENNAI CESTAT;