TIOL-DDT 2156 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=17063"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/limca_book2013.jpg" alt="DDT in Limca Book of Records" width="175" height="120" hspace="5" border="0" align="right"></a></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 2156</font><br>
25.07.2013<br>
Thursday</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sedans like Maruti SX4 attract duty of 27% - CBEC Clarifies </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>BY</strong> amending notification <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2013/etariff13_12.htm" target="_blank">12/2013-CE</a></strong> dated 01.03.2013, for serial number 284 and the entries relating thereto appearing in notification <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2012/etariff12_12.htm" target="_blank">12/2012-CE</a></strong> dated 17.03.2012, the following serial numbers and the entries were substituted, namely:- </font></p>
<table width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"284 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">8702 and 8703 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Following motor vehicles, namely:- <br>
(i) Motor vehicles of engine capacity not exceeding 1500 cc; and </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) Motor vehicles of engine capacity exceeding 1500 cc other than motor vehicles specified against entry at Sl. No. 284A. </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">24% </font></p>
<p> </p>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">27% </font></strong></font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- </font></p>
<p> </p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">284A </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">8703 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Motor vehicles of engine capacity exceeding 1500 cc, popularly known as Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) including utility vehicles. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Explanation. - For the purposes of this entry, SUV includes a motor vehicle of length exceeding 4000 mm and having ground clearance of 170 mm and above. </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font color="#FF0000"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">30% </font></strong></font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">-"; </font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Board informs that it has received references from motor vehicle manufacturers, seeking clarification as to whether the excise duty of 30% is applicable on sedan cars like MarutiSX4, Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla Altis. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The manufacturers state that the aforesaid motor vehicles namely, Maruti SX4, Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla Altis satisfy all the three conditions mentioned at Sl. No. 284A viz. (i) the engine capacity exceeds 1500 cc; (ii) the length exceeds 4000 mm and (iii) ground clearance is 170 mm and above but they are <strong>NOT POPULARLY KNOWN AS ‘SPORTS UTILITY VEHICLES</strong>'. Inasmuch as they are in the nature of ‘SEDAN' and may not get covered in the said entry 284A, the manufacturers submit. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, the Board has examined the issue and informs - </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"In the Budget 2013-14, excise duty was increased from 27% to 30% on motor vehicles of engine capacity exceeding 1500 cc, popularly known as Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs) including utility vehicles. In the Explanation appended at Sl. No. 284A of the aforecited notification, it has been mentioned that for the purposes of this entry, SUV includes a motor vehicle of length exceeding 4000 mm and having ground clearance of 170 mm and above. From this, it may be seen that the higher excise duty of 30% is applicable on motor vehicles which are popularly known as SUVs and which satisfy all the three conditions, viz. (i) the engine capacity exceeds 1500 cc, (ii) the length exceeds 4000 mm; and (iii) the ground clearance is 170 mm and above. MarutiSX4, Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla Altis are stated to satisfy all the three conditions but, they are not popularly known as SUVs and neither are they known so in trade parlance. They are reportedly known as sedans in trade and common parlance."</font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Board, therefore, concludes - </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"it is clarified that the aforecited motor vehicles, which are known as sedans, will attract the excise duty of<font color="#FF0000"><strong> 27%</strong></font> as applicable to large segment cars. [Sl.No . 284 (ii) of the Table in the notification]" </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Some respite of 3% in the otherwise gloomy scenario for the car industry. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2013/excircular972.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC Circular No. 972/06/2013.CX., Dated: July 24, 2013 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Corrigendum to Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>CBLR, 2013 came on to the scene in place of the CHALR, 2004 through <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2013/cnt13_065.htm" target="_blank">65/2013-Cus.,(N.T.)</a></strong>, Dated: June 21, 2013 which notification was not made available for three whole days. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Be that as it may, we had covered the <em><strong>new age broker</strong></em> in this column <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTgwNTk=" target="_blank">DDT 2134</a></strong>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There were some grammatical, numerical and word replacements required and the Board has done the needful by issuing a corrigendum few days back. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF3333" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By the way, we understand that no Custom House has licenced the brokers - the old CHAs are continuing - illegally! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2013/cnt13_065.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Corrigendum dated July 21, 2013 [Customs]</font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Due date for filing IT Returns extended - for Uttarakhand </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CONSIDERING</strong> the large-scale devastation due to recent natural calamity in the State of Uttarakhand, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, has extended the 'due-date' for filing Returns of Income required to be furnished by 31st July, 2013 to 31st October, 2013, in respect of income-tax assessees residing or assessed in the State of Uttarakhand. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=wnew/e_filing_date_extends.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBDT Order Under Section 119 in F.No. 225/117/2013/ITA.II, Dated: July 23, 2013 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">No more Post-dated cheques (PDC)/EMI Cheques </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>RESERVE</strong> bank of India has advised banks that: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. No fresh/additional Post Dated Cheques (PDC)/Equated Monthly Installment (EMI) cheques (either in old format or new CTS-2010 format) shall be accepted in locations where the facility of ECS/RECS (Debit) is available. The existing PDCs/EMI cheques in such locations may be converted into ECS/RECS (Debit) by obtaining fresh ECS (Debit) mandates. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 accords the same rights and remedies to the payee (beneficiary) against dishonour of electronic funds transfer instructions under insufficiency of funds as are available under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=347&filename=notification/rbi/2013/rbi013noti020.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">RBI/2013-14/158 - DPSS.CO.CHD.No. / 209 / 04.07.05 / 2013-14, Dated: July 24, 2013 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Income Tax - refund - Expeditious and fast track disposals are mandatory and required - HC </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> petitioner submits to the High Court that year after year, they are entitled to substantial refunds on account of excess TDS deducted and they had to file three writ petitions for payment of refunds. Another allegation made by the petitioner is that the Department did not entertain their application under Section 197, till 1st April, 2013. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court observed that this should not happen and cannot be justified as an assessee is entitled to file an application even before the commencement of the financial year for deduction of tax has to be made in the financial year itself by the payer. Expeditious and fast track disposals are mandatory and required.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court directed the petitioner to file a revision petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), who will dispose of the revision petition expeditiously preferably within a period of thirty days of filing of the revision petition. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please see <font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=ODkyMjA=" target="_blank">2013-TIOL-578-HC-DEL-IT</a></font></font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Appointment of Member of CBEC - PS Pruthi and others to be considered - HC </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>PS</strong> Pruthi is a Chief Commissioner under the CBEC since 09.11.2011, having joined the IRS in 1978. He is aggrieved with the appointment of Sandhya Baliga, Shobha L. Chary and Lipika Majumdar Roy Choudhary as Members of the CBEC, while his own candidature was not considered. In the year 2012-13, four vacancies arose in the Board on 1.5.2012, 01.08.2012, 4.9.2012 and 31.12.2012 and the three ladies were appointed to the three vacancies. Pruthi's claim is that he was eligible for the fourth vacancy, as he would have completed one year of qualifying service by 31.12.2012, having been appointed as Chief Commissioner on 09.11.2011. But he was not considered, as he did not have the requisite service as on 1.4.2012. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">He approached the CAT and the Tribunal was convinced with his argument and directed the Government to enlarge panel of the year 2012-13 as per the relevant Recruitment Rules by considering the Applicant for the vacancy arising on 31.12.2012 as per his merit and as per rules as he has already been promoted as Chief Commissioner on 09.11.2011 and fulfilled the requirement of the Recruitment Rules. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Tribunal did not agree to quash the appointment of the three Members as they were found to have the requisite one-year's service in the prescribed post even as on 01.04.2012, the question of considering them not qualified for the post does not arise. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">While reporting this in <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTcwNjM=" target="_blank">DDT 2051</a> - </strong>22.02.2013, we questioned, "<em>Now, will Government consider Pruthi's case promptly and appoint him a Member of CBEC? He still has 11 months of service left</em>." </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Both Pruthi and the Government appealed to the High Court against the CAT order. The High Court last week directed that all the officers (including Pruthi) who applied for the post of Member which fell vacant on 31.12.2012 should be considered for appointment as Member, CBEC. The Court wanted the process to be completed within three months. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, what will the Government do? Will they allow Pruthi to board the Board? He retires in January 2014. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Two more vacancies will crop up in the Board within the next three months and they cannot be filled up before the existing vacancy is filled. </font></p>
<p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please see <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=ODkyMjE=" target="_blank"><font size="1">2013-TIOL-579-HC-DEL-SERVICE</font></a></font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is construction of toll plaza taxable? </font></strong></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>A</strong> Netizen sent me a mail:</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Will you please oblige me by publishing my question in your <strong>DDT</strong> Column? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Service tax is not leviable on toll fee paid by roads users at Toll Plaza - Clarified by Board vide Circular No. 152/3/2012-S.T., dated 22-2-2012. But still Service Tax law is silent about leviability of service tax on construction of toll plaza meant for collection of toll tax on behalf of NHAI. Collection of toll is sovereign function of the State though also exempted from service tax. Can construction of toll plaza be called commercial activity ? </font></em></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Preventive Detention Order is valid even after sixteen years!!! </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AN</strong> order for preventive detention is issued under COFEPOSA Act and as the prospective detenue was absconding for sixteen years, it could not be enforced. Can it still be enforced after sixteen years? Preventive detention is not a punishment for a crime; it is only a preventive measure to prevent the person from committing a crime and if for sixteen years he has not committed any crime, is there any point in detaining him after sixteen years to prevent him from committing a crime? This was the question before a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Altamas Kabir on his last day in office headed the Larger Bench and ruled that, <em>where the detention orders have not been executed for more than two years and there is no material on record to indicate that the proposed detenue had, in the meantime, continued his anti-social activities, it has to be held that the detention orders in respect of such proposed detenues were no longer relevant and must be quashed.</em> </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But on his last day in the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice found the other two judges of the Bench disagreeing with him and passing separate dissenting orders. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Justice Gyan Sudha Misra held that the order of detention cannot be quashed and set aside merely due to long lapse of time. She did not want to accept a sordid situation akin to the adage of "Let be gone be bygone" which cannot be swallowed as that would clearly be defeating the very object and purpose of the preventive detention laws encouraging the proposed detenue to stay away and twist the arms of law misusing the provisions to their advantage. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Justice Chelameswar held that those who have evaded the process of law shall not be heard by this Court to say that their fundamental rights are in jeopardy. He did not want to enable the law breaker to take advantage of his own conduct which is contrary to law. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please see <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=18271" target="_blank">Breaking News</a></strong> for this interesting case. Please also see our article <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=3315"><strong>The Cofeposa Act - Toothless tiger? Well almost!!! </strong></a></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As CHA has not even filed a B/E, order suspending licence set aside </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> licence of the appellant CHA was suspended by the Commissioner of Customs (Gen) vide order dated 23.04.2013. The reason - he had received information from DRI on 21.03.2013 that in the guise of consignment of furniture, <font color="#FF0000"><em><strong>some</strong></em></font> cigarettes are imported by the importer namely ‘Toyo India' and it was an emergent situation warranting suspension of licence. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The appellant is before the CESTAT and plead that their application for early hearing be allowed as they are out of business and the appeal taken up. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is further submitted that the appellant has no role to play in the import of the impugned consignment as they have not even filed bill of entry; they have no role in the said activity of mis-declaration of the goods and, therefore the impugned order qua suspension of the CHA licence be set aside. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Revenue representative stuck to the findings of the Commissioner. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Bench observed - </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"7. …On perusal of the record, we find that the appellant has not even filed bill of entry, therefore, they have no role to play for clearance of the impugned consignment wherein in the consignment of furniture some cigarettes were found. Therefore, impugned order deserves no merit, hence same is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief. It is pertinent to note that the Commissioner is at liberty to proceed with the matter as per the provisions of Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 (if required)." </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please See <font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=ODkyMjI=" target="_blank">2013-TIOL-1123-CESTAT-MUM</a></font></font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Jurispruden</font><font color="#FF6633" size="5">tiol</font><font color="#006600"> – Friday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/ddt_hammer.jpg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="100" height="84" hspace="5" border="0" align="left"><font color="#663399"><strong>Central Excise</strong></font></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Appeals - a typical case where at every stage of litigation irrelevant legal principles were pressed into service resulting in colossal waste of time of adjudicators including time of this Court: SC </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>TRIBUNAL</strong> instead of deciding the correctness of the conclusion went into the questions of law unwarranted by the facts of the case. Having regard to the paltry amount involved in the matter, the long and chequered history of the litigation and the resultant wastage of time of the various fora, coupled with the fact, the 1st appellate authority found some substance in the defence of the respondent, the Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the judgment under appeal. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Income Tax </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether when assessee pays huge premium on investment in shares of its subsidiaries, same can be treated as disguised loan - Case remanded: ITAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> issues before the Bench are - Whether when the assessee had paid a huge premium on its investment in the share capital of its subsidiaries, the Revenue is justified to treat the amount of share premium as a disguised loan and Whether when the assessee had claimed section 10A exemption, and not excluded communication expenses incurred in foreign exchange in providing the technical services outside India, the Revenue is justified to reduce these charges from the export turnover and not the total turnover. The primary question is remanded to the AO. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Service Tax</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Harvesting of sugar cane and transporting same to sugar factory for which labour is employed - activity is one of procuring and processing of goods belonging to client which is classifiable under BAS - appeal allowed: CESTAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> appellant is a private limited company whose share holders are mainly farmers. They entered into an agreement with <em>M/s. Sanjivini SSK Ltd</em>., for harvesting of sugar cane at the fields of member-farmers and transporting the same to the sugar factory. Remuneration for harvesting and transportation were paid on a tonnage basis i.e per ton of the sugarcane delivered at the factory. The department was of the view that the act of providing harvesting sugar cane and transporting the harvested sugar cane from the farmers' fields to the factory site is classifiable as ‘manpower recruitment or supply agency service' and is chargeable to service tax. Accordingly, a Service Tax demand of Rs.1,03,71,911/- was issued and confirmed by the CCE, Aurangabad.</font></p>
<p><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our Columns Friday for the judgements </font></strong></p>
<p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Friday with more <strong>DDT</strong></font></p>
<p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice day.</font></p>
<p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mail your comments to </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com"><strong>vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </strong></a></font></p>
</body>
</html>