Postponement of GST deadline: FM tells EC he does not favour any future date; CST rate to be reduced further;

It's result time for corporate: A peep into possible results in Q3;

CCEA approves addl equity worth USD 200 mn in Pepsico Holding;

CCEA okays new ICT syllabus for schools during XI Plan;

Nicole Kidman helps break ground for UN Centre to end violence against women;

CPM veteran Jyoti Basu's condition continues to be serious; AIIMS docs put on job;

TIOL COMMENTARY

story.pdf

It's result time for corporate: A peep into possible results in Q3;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1201.pdf

CCEA approves addl equity worth USD 200 mn in Pepsico Holding;

mbuzz1200.pdf

CCEA okays new ICT syllabus for schools during XI Plan;

mbuzz1199.pdf

Postponement of GST deadline: FM tells EC he does not favour any future date; CST rate to be reduced further;

mbuzz1198.pdf

Nicole Kidman helps break ground for UN Centre to end violence against women;

2010-TIOL-27-HC-KAR-IT.pdf

CIT, Bangalore Vs M/s Karnataka Financial Corpn (Dated: December 4, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 37 - Assessee is a State-owned corporation - AO disallows expenditure incurred for developing 'Model Village' - CIT(A) and Tribunal allow the same - held, no infirmity in the Tribunal's order as the expenditure incurred on construction of a new market to organise self-hel groups is for business promotion - Revenue's appeal dismissed:KARNATAKA HIGH COURT;

2010-TIOL-26-HC-MAD-IT.pdf

CIT, Madurai Vs Shri K M Ganesan (Dated: November 30, 2009)

Income tax - Sec 158BD - Assessee is real estate broker - his residential premises are searched u/s 132 - AO issues notice u/s 158BC - later realising that the warrant was not in the name of the assessee, a fresh notice is issue - limitation - assessee alleges that the assessment order passed by the Revenue is time-barred - Revenue calculates the time limit from the date of issue of second notice - CIT(A) and Tribunal go with the assessee's plea - held, merely because a wrong section was quoted it would not vitiate the notice, and if the time limit is calculated from the date of first notice, the assessment is beyond the period prescribed under Section 158 2BE 2(b) - Revenue's appeal dismissed :MADRAS HIGH COURT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2010-TIOL-52-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

M/s Rane Enterprises Vs CCE, Meerut (Dated : September 14, 2009)

Service Tax – After sales service – Adjudication order does not give reasons for levying tax under BAS when terms of agreement reveal it to be a franchise arrangement – Appellant also entitled for benefit of Notification 6/2005-ST as small service provider – Impugned order liable to be set aside:DELHI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-51-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

CCE, Lucknow Vs M/s Sharda Steel Industries Ltd (Dated : September 24, 2009)

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2010-TIOL-54-CESTAT-DEL.pdf + prakash industries story.pdf

M/s Prakash Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Raipur (Dated : June 10, 2009)

Central Excise – Appeals – Maintainability of appeal – ‘Principal Officer' is not defined in Central Excise Act, 1944 or Rules made there under – In the absence of any meaning to this term under this law, the principal officer duly authorised by the company under a resolution shall be a ‘principal officer' of that company for the purpose of Rule 8 (3) of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 – As per Rule 8(3) of the said Rules, the word ‘appellant' is used in the context of an ‘appeal', ‘applicant' in the context of an ‘application' and ‘respondent' in the context of ‘cross-objection' – While appellant, applicant and respondent can sign the three documents themselves, law permits to get these three documents signed by a duly authorized ‘principal officer' – Rule cannot be interpreted in a narrower sense – Revenue's preliminary objection overruled – Stay application and Appeal memorandum signed by duly authorized ‘principal officer' held maintainable

Central Excise – Valuation – Part removal of goods for captive consumption and partly for independent sale – CESTAT has consistently held that that when a part of the goods are used for captive consumption, valuation under Rule 4 applicable – However, law not being static, a dynamic approach possible in the light of further developments with the aid of rule of interpretation – Rule 8 may be applied for that part of goods not sold but used captively whereas part goods which are sold attracts a different rule of valuation – Board's Circular 643/34/02-CX dated 1.7.02 made an attempt of classification by usage criteria – Extent of applicability of Board's Circular to be tested under Rule 8 read with Section 4 – To resolve this status quo ante ordered to protect assessee till the disposal of appeal – Posted for further hearing :DELHI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-53-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

CCE, Bangalore Vs M/s KPTCL (Dated : May 20, 2009)

Central Excise – Clearance of goods for captive consumption resulting in short payment of duty – Authorities did not conduct proper verification of periodical returns filed by assessee – Extended period of limitation not invokable – Impugned order sustained – No merit in Revenue appeal :BANGALORE CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

NOTIFICATION

dgft09pn029.pdf

Amendment of paragraph 4.22.1 of HBP v1 for extension of Export Obligation Period (EOP) for advance authorisations issued for import of raw sugar.;

dgft09pn028.pdf

New Office address of Regional Authority at Surat;

dgft09not023.pdf

Import policy of items under Exim Code "7208" ;

CASE LAWS

2010-TIOL-50-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

CC, Chennai Vs M/s Hi-Tech Machinery (Dated : September 30, 2009)

Customs – exemption – denial of benefit of notification under Notification 21/2002 Cus and 6/2002 CE for sewing machines having provision for in-built motor – only sewing machines with in-built motor are excluded from the notification and merely having provision for built in motor do not make the machines ineligible for exemption – Revenue appeal has no merit. :CHENNAI CESTAT;