India successfully test-fires Agni III intermediate-range ballistic missile early today

Customs - Import of second hand main frame assemblies with few PCBs of photocopiers is not restricted under Policy - confiscation under Section 111 (d), redemption fine and penalty set aside - enhancement of value upheld (See '2010-TIOL-217-Cestat-Mad')

Mamta urges private sector to work in partnership with Railways

Central Excise - Against an order of 1983 unpaid amount of duty of Rs 32,000 is paid only on 21.5.2007 - Appellant required to pay interest u/s 11AA from 1995 to 2007: CESTAT (See 'Breaking News' + '2010-TIOL-216-CESTAT-MUM')

Financial Inclusion - Product Designing and Target Costing may help!

JNU Professor in CBI net on corruption charges;

Siliguri DRI seizes Red Sanders wood from two trucks on Indo-Nepal border;

Bollywood veteran actor Sujit Kumar passes away at 75;

TIOL COMMENTARY

story.pdf

Financial Inclusion - Product Designing and Target Costing may help!

RBI CIRCULAR

rbi09cir031.pdf

Exim Bank's Line of Credit of USD 36 million to the Government of the Republic of Mali;

MIXED BUZZ

mbuzz1290.pdf

PM urges CMs to set up state-level nodal agencies to investigate FICN cases;

mbuzz1289.pdf

UN workshop focuses on internet access for visually impaired;

mbuzz1288.pdf

JNU Professor in CBI net on corruption charges;

2010-TIOL-61-ITAT-HYD.pdf + Kishoresons Surfactants story.pdf

M/s Kishoresons Surfactants Hyderabad Vs ACIT, Circle 7(1), Hyderabad (Dated: October 23, 2010)

Income Tax – revision by CIT - To invoke the provisions of sec.263 of the Act, the order in question should be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, both requirements are mandatory: To invoke the provisions of sec.263 of the Act, the order in question should be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If an order is erroneous but not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, then the power of revision u/s 263 cannot be invoked by the CIT. Similarly, an order is prejudicial and not erroneous, and then also the same cannot be subject matter of revision because both the requirements u/s 263 are mandatory to be fulfilled to invoke the said provisions Further, the assessing officer has taken one possible view permitted in law which cannot be found fault with by the CIT.: HYDERABAD ITAT;

2010-TIOL-60-ITAT-MUM.pdf

M/s Cello Plast Vs DCIT, Mumbai (Dated: January 19, 2010)

Income Tax - AO makes disallowance on the ground that the assessee has sold factory building and has also surrendered its electricity meter – CIT(A) partly allows  expenses on account of bank charges, ESIC, Insurance, rebate and discount but  disallows legal and professional charges and depreciation – Held, the CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance for the reason that details of legal and professional charges were not filed. In the details filed before the CIT(A)  it has been clearly mentioned that these expenses were incurred on account of legal and professional charges. The payments are not in dispute. The other expenses which were not allowed by the AO have been allowed by the CIT(A);, the disallowance of expenses on account of legal and professional charges was not justified.

On the issue of depreciation – Held, the depreciation disallowed by the lower authorities was claimed on the assets which were not sold by the assessee during the year under consideration. These assets were part of block of assets. Depreciation claimed by the Assessee is allowable. Ground allowed.

On the issue of not allowing deduction u/s 54EC - Held, it is clearly established that there was reasonable cause in not purchasing these specified bonds within the specified time allowed as they were not available in the market. As soon as the bonds were available in the market, the assessee immediately purchased the same. Under these circumstances, assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54EC - Assessee's appeal allowed.: MUMBAI ITAT;

SERVICE TAX SECTION

2010-TIOL-219-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

M/s Daspalla Hotels Ltd Vs CCE, Visakhaptnam (Dated: July 30, 2009)

Service Tax – Taxability of food and beverages supplied under contract for service prior to July 2003 – Payment of service tax and VAT are mutually exclusive – Once VAT/sale tax is discharged on food, beverages, etc. assessees not required to pay service tax on the same value – Impugned service tax demand not sustainable – Apex Court decisions in BSNL case = 2006-TIOL-15-SC-CT-LB and Imagic Creative case = 2008-TIOL-04-SC-VAT followed :BANGALORE CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-213-CESTAT-BANG.pdf

Ganta Ramanaiah Naidu, Nellore Vs CCE, Guntur (Dated: September 10, 2009)

Service Tax – Site formation and Clearance Service – Classification of tippers under Chapter 87 as ‘motor vehicles' by the supplier attained finality – Denial of credit on ‘tippers' upheld in view of exclusion of ‘motor vehicles' from eligibility of credit except under circumstances specified in CENVAT Credit Rules – Appellants contention that they only availed CENVAT Credit but not utilized the same for payment of service tax not disputed by adjudicating authority, penalty and interest not sustainable – Impugned order set aside to this extent only :DELHI CESTAT;

CENTRAL EXCISE SECTION

2010-TIOL-218-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + Unichem Story.pdf

M/s Unichem Laboratories Ltd Vs Commissioner(Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai II (Dated: December 30, 2009)

No bonafide in filing appeal before the Commissioner(A) when the proper forum for filing the appeal is the CESTAT – CESTAT rejects appeal and COD application. : MUMBAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-216-CESTAT-MUM.pdf + steel story.pdf

Steel Knight Casting Vs CCE, Nashik (Dated: December 23, 2009)

Against an order dated 26.11.1983 the unpaid amount of duty of Rs.32,000/- was paid only on 21.5.2007 – Appellant required to pay interest u/s 11AA of the CEA, 1944 from 26.08.1995 to 21.05.2007: MUMBAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-215-CESTAT-DEL.pdf

Dr Shri Krishna Yadav Vs CCE, Gurgaon (Dated: September 9, 2009)

Central Excise – Eligibility of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 6/2000-CE for motor vehicle fitted with automatic transmission for use by physically handicapped person – Section officer in Ministry of Heavy Industries not competent to withdraw certificate originally issued by Director – Denial of concessional rate of duty not justified – Impugned order not sustainable : DELHI CESTAT;

CUSTOMS SECTION

2010-TIOL-217-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

M/s S S International Vs CC, Trichy (Dated: November 9, 2009)

Customs – Import of second hand main frame assemblies with few PCBs of photocopiers is not restricted under the Policy – confiscation under Section 111 (d), redemption fine and penalty set aside - enhancement of value upheld.:CHENNAI CESTAT;

2010-TIOL-214-CESTAT-MAD.pdf

Uplus Batteries Pvt Ltd Vs CC, Chennai (Dated: September 22, 2009)

Customs – Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit – Anti-dumping duty on industrial lead acid batteries of Chinese origin – prima facie, there is overwhelming evidence of manufacture of goods in China – pre-deposit ordered.:CHENNAI CESTAT;