I.  Today's Topline News:   

1. FinMin hits back, says Vodafone was aware of tax liability  (Click for detail)

2. Cheque bouncing may also give rise to cheating case, rules SC  (Click for detail)

3. Credit rating agency S&P revises India economic outlook to negative  (Click for detail)

4. Government to fork out $11 billion for higher IMF quota  (Click for detail)

5. Lawmakers praise Indian companies for stimulating US economy  (Click for detail)

6. Why you need to revisit your financial plan  (Click for detail)

II.  Useful Case laws:

1.   INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING (P) LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF C. EX. (S.T.), MADURAI (CESTAT CHENNAI) Final Order No. 1169/2011, dated 27-10-2011 in Appeal No. ST/488/2011 (In favour of Revenue)

Brief Fact of the Case:

• In respect of exports made from 14-5-2009 till 6-7-2009, the grant of the refund would be governed by the conditions under the previous Notification No. 41/2007, dated 6-10-2007. For the remaining period, refund would be governed by the new Notification No. 17/2009, dated 7-7-2009. 

• 2. The conditions prescribed in the two notifications are somewhat different. The precedent notification in force till 6-7-2009 had a condition that the storage and warehouse is exclusively used for the purpose of storage or warehouse of the export goods. However, there is no such condition in the successor notification applicable from 7-7-2009.

Held:

It is not in dispute that the appellants have stored some inputs in addition to export goods in the impugned warehouse and, going by the condition of the previous notification read strictly as has been done by the authorities below, the appellants are not eligible for refund on exports made upto 6-7-2009 in this regard. However, I find no reason to deny them refund for the period from 7-7-2009 onwards as the relevant notification does not prescribe any condition that the storage and warehouse should be exclusively used only for the purpose of export goods.

(Please click here for judgment)

2.  RAJ RATAN CASTINGS PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., KANPUR (CESTAT, NEW DELHI), Final Order No. ST/574/2011(PB) and Stay Order No. ST/740/2011(PB), dated 18-10-2011, Appeal No. ST/353/2011 (In favour of assessee)

Brief Fact of The Case:

• The appellant/assessee  is a distributor of mutual fund units and receives commission from mutual fund companies or asset management companies. The commission received by the appellants from the said companies stand taxed by the authorities below on the ground that they have provided Business auxiliary services to the mutual fund company.

• 2. The appellant/assessee submits that it is recipient of such services, which is liable to pay service tax in terms of rule2(1)(d)(vi) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.

Held:

Tribunal held that in respect of above services recipient of services is required to pay service tax. Hence the appellant/assessee is not required to pay service tax as it is provider of services. (Para 6)

Tribunal also held that if service tax does not stand paid by mutual fund companies or asset management companies, proceedings have to be started against the companies itself and the fact whether they have paid or not paid will not transfer the liability to the mutual fund distributor. (Para 7)

(Please click here for judgment)

Key of Success :

"Hard times are like a washing machine
they twist turn and knock us around, 
but in the end we come out cleaner brighter
and better than before"

Thanks for your valuable time

"Voice of CA"