TIOL-DDT 1083 · 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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 1083</font><br>
01.04.2009<br>
Wednesday</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Export Duty on clearances to SEZ –Matter in Supreme Court</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DURING </strong>July – August 2008, this was a very hot issue. While arguing a case in the AP high Court, I had submitted to the Court that the issue had to be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court as there would be writ petitions in many High Courts.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On
25.7.2008, the Gujarat High Court had granted a stay and the government's
delayed SLP came up before the Supreme Court on 30/03/2009. The Supreme Court
has posted the case to 9 th April 2009.</font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">CBEC notifies Exchange Rates for April 2009 </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CBEC has notified the Exchange Rates for Imported Goods and Export Goods with effect from 1st April 2009. Notification No <strong>. </strong>21/2009-Customs (N. T.), dated the 25 th February, 2009 , is superseded.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2009/cnt09_038.htm" target="_blank">Notification NO. 38/2009 -CUSTOMS(NT), Dated: March 27, 2009</a></strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Tariff Value of Brass Scrap and Poppy Seeds Reduced </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Government has decreased the Tariff Value of Brass Scrap from 2658 US Dollars to 2446 and decreased the Tariff Value of Poppy Seeds from 3894 Dollars to 3752 Dollars. There is no change in the Tariff Values of other items.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2009/cnt09_039.htm" target="_blank">Notification NO. 39/2009 -CUSTOMS(NT), Dated: March 31, 2009</a></strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Anti Dumping Duty on Hexa Methylene Tetramine – yet another resurrection</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">When it comes to keeping tracking of sunset clauses in Anti Dumping Duty, the CBEC has been consistent – in its failure. And here's the latest.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=7035" target="_blank">DDT-827-18.03.2008</a> </strong>when the last extension was done, we reported, “That was JIT - Just In Time! Anti Dumping Duty imposed on Hexamine originating in, or exported from, Iran was provisionally imposed by No. 42/2003-Customs, dated the 17th March, 2003 which was confirmed by Notification No. 58/2005-Customs dated the 30th June, 2005. This would have expired on 16.03.2008. An alert Board acted well in time and extended this by another year till 16.03.2009. And this was done two whole days before the notification died. Well Done Board.”</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Anti Dumping Duty was extended till 16.3.2009 and so the duty was dead on 17.3.2009 and this time around they could not wake up on time.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By this notification dated 26th February, 2009, the Designated Authority recommended continued imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty. The Revenue Department had 20 days to issue the notification, but it allowed the notification to lapse.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And now they have issued a fresh notification re-imposing the antidumping duty with effect from 27.3.2009.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Was there no dumping between 17.3.2009 and 26.3.2009? How can a Revenue Department be so callous?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">May be the power to issue Customs Notifications for imposing and continuing Anti Dumping Duty should be vested with the Designated Authority instead of the Revenue Department! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2009/ctariff09_032.htm" target="_blank">Notification NO. 32/2009 - Cus ., Dated: March 27, 2009</a></strong>
</font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Anti Dumping </font></strong><font color="#006600"><strong> Duty on Vitamin E – Government extends yet another notification – dead twice</strong></font></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If there can be resurrection once, what stops you from doing it twice?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=7137" target="_blank">DDT 841- 08.04.2008</a></strong>, we reported,</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti Dumping Duty on Vitamin E, originating in or exported from the People's Republic of China, was imposed vide notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 145/2003- CUSTOMS dated the 6th October, 2003. The Designated Authority has requested for extension of anti-dumping duty for a period of one year from the date of its expiry. The Anti Dumping duty expired on 16.3.2008.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now the Government has extended the notification till 16.3.2009. But this should have been done before 16.3.2008. But Government has no machinery to keep track of expiring notifications and they believe in resurrection of dead notifications.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But what happens for the period between 16.3.2008 and 4.4.2008, when the Notification was extended? Litigation?</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The notification which expired on 16.3.2008 was extended till 16.3.2009 on 4.4.2008 and this expired on 16.3.2009. Again they forgot to extend it and now they have re imposed the duty with effect from 27.3.2009. And there was no dumping from 17.3.2009 to 26.3.2009. Amen.</font></p>
<p align="left"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2009/ctariff09_033.htm" target="_blank">Notification NO. 33/2009 - Cus ., Dated: March 27, 2009</a></strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Guidelines for execution of BG/LUT for filing application under DEPB scheme</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT in Notification No. 88 and Public Notice No. 151, both dated 26.02.2009, had relaxed the procedure for availing the benefit of DEPB and the Chapter 3 Incentive schemes (Having transferability facility).</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT has now prescribed detailed guidelines for execution of BG/LUT with Regional Authorities for filing application under DEPB scheme and Incentive schemes of Chapter 3 of FTP without the requirement of Bank Realisation Certificate.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The HOP has been suitably amended.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=46&filename=notification/dgft/2008/dgft08cir076.htm" target="_blank">DGFT Policy Circular No. 76 (RE-2008)/2004-2009 Dated: March 30, 2009</a></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">and</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=47&filename=notification/dgft/2008/dgft08pn167.htm" target="_blank">DGFT Public Notice No. 167 (RE-2008)/2004-09, Dated: March 30, 2009</a></strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Income tax - Reliance pipeline project - Basic Engineering and Procurement services provided by Australian company fall within the scope of </font></strong><font color="#006600"><strong><font color="#FF6600">royalties</font> and the receipts are taxable in India: AAR</strong></font></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The applicant is a company incorporated in Australia engaged in the business of providing professional services to the energy and resource industries. Reliance Petroleum Ltd, an Indian Company proposed to lay cross-country pipelines for transportation of hydro-carbons from Jamnagar to Bhopal and from Goa to Hyderabad.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We bring you an important Advance Ruling today. Please see <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=8833" target="_blank">Breaking News</a></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Munna bhai is not a habitual criminal but NO to Parliament – Supreme Court</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dacoits and murderers have made it to Parliament, but sanjay Dutt's hopes of entering parliament have been shattered because long long ago he made a juvenile mistake of owning a gun.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The subtle difference is there is no bar on people accused of crimes entering parliament but one convicted of a crime cannot. Fair enough.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Supreme Court observed about Sanjay, “The petitioner is a well-known cine artist and because of his contribution to art and cinema he has got large number of fans throughout the country and abroad. His father was also a well-known film actor and he was deeply involved in politics. At one point of time, petitioner's father was Minister in the Union Cabinet. The <strong>petitioner is not a habitual criminal </strong>nor has it been brought to our notice that he had involved in any other criminal case. Despite all these favourable circumstances, we do not think that this is a fit case where conviction and sentence could be suspended so that the bar under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 will not operate against the petitioner. Law prohibits any person who has been convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years from contesting the election and such person shall be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. In the face of such a provision, the power of the Court under Section 389 Cr.P.C . shall be exercised only under exceptional circumstances.”</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But remember Supreme Court had permitted Navjot Singh Sidhu.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why? The court explained,</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“In that case, the petitioner was a sitting MP and he could have continued as an MP even after his conviction and sentence in view of Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The petitioner Navjot Singh Sidhu resigned and expressed his desire to contest the election. In fact, that was a case where the trial court acquitted the petitioner and the High Court, in reversal, found the petitioner guilty. It was in those circumstances this Court granted stay of the order of conviction and sentence in that case. In the present case, no such circumstances are in favour of the petitioner.”</font></p>
<p align="center"><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">–Tomorrow's cases</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><b><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"></b></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></font></strong></font><font color="#663399">Customs</font> </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6600">No question of confiscation or imposition of redemption fine as goods declared as <em>Fuel oil </em> by the importer and ascertained to be <em>Waste oil </em> by the Revenue have already been cleared, consumed or sold after payment of duty and released without any bond/undertaking <em> – </em>Tribunal </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>NOTING</strong> that the principal issue has already been decided by the Larger Bench in the respondent's (<em>M/s Rishi Ship Breakers</em>) own case by holding that the goods cannot be confiscated and fine in lieu of confiscation cannot be imposed if the goods are not available for confiscation (excluding the cases where the goods are initially seized and provisionally released), the Bench observed that judicial discipline required that the same be followed and without going into the merits of the case <strong><em>rejected the appeal of the Revenue.</em></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399">Income Tax</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6600">Indo-Australia DTAA - engineering services - part of service contract executed outside India - royalty income - ratio of Apex Court decision in Ishikawajima not applicable - doctrine of territorial nexus at work - splitting of income not permissible - entire receipts are taxable in India: Advance Ruling Authority</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IN</strong> an engineering service contract it is a common practice that a non-resident company partly renders the services in India and partly outside. But the million-dollar question is - whether the receipts from such a contract are taxable in India only to the extent of services utilised as well as rendered in India, and thus the services provided outside India are not to be taxed? But keeping in mind the doctrine of territorial nexus and non-application of the ratio of Apex Court decision in <em>Ishikawajima </em>, the Authority for Advance Ruling has held that the entire income representing royalty under the agreement is liable to be taxed in India at the appropriate rate, both under the provisions of IT Act, 1961 as well as DTAA between India Australia. The splitting up of such income is not permissible.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399">Central Excise</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6600">Installation charges collected in connection with sale of computers are not includable in transaction value – CESTAT </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>appellant is engaged in manufacture and clearance of computers from their factory and branches. When the computers are installed at the buyer's premises, installation charges are charged separately in the invoices. The revenue demanded central excise duty on these installation charges collected on the ground that the same is includable in the transaction value with effect from 1.7.2000 as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee was in appeal against the confirmation of the demand by the Commissioner.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399">See our columns tomorrow for the judgements</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>"Ultimately, this is your money, and you deserve to know where it's going and how it's spent" – President Obama</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until tomorrow with more <strong>DDT</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice Day.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6600" 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">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com</a></font></p>
</body>
</html>