Netizens keep us on our toes with both accolades and brickbats – Thank You Sir
While reporting the judgement delivered by the Mumbai Bench of CESTAT in M/s Paros Corporation vs. CC (I), JNCH, Nhava Sheva 2009-TIOL-1007-CESTAT-MUM in our analysis on this case, we reported as follows:
“Incidentally, the above proviso and the Explanation thereto does not suggest the remedy to be adopted when the RSP declared on the imported article fails to reflect the true retail price or when the RSP declared on the package is altered, tampered or obliterated. It is pertinent to note that section 4A of the CEA, 1944 went through all these trials and tribulations before emerging rock solid by the amendments carried out in sub-section (4) on 14.05.2003 and by the framing of the Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008 vide notification no. 13/2008-CE(N.T), dated 01.03.2008.
Having said that, it would appear quite ludicrous to assume that the provisions of section 2(f)(iii) of the CEA, 1944 come into play in the present case firstly because the provisions would apply to goods manufactured in India and secondly the singular activity of ‘alteration of the retail sale price' cannot possibly tantamount to manufacture for the simple reason that the goods were already marketable in the first place. Paragraph 6 of the Board Circular 1/2000- Cus III dated 05.01.2000 is also an indicator in this regard. Coupled with the Apex Court decision in Johnson & Johnson [] and BOC (I) Ltd. [], the case would appear to be split wide open."
We received an incisive comment, from one of our learned Netizens, posted in the Message Board:
“With due respect to the TIOL team which has been doing a fantastic job giving great coverage on indirect tax, pristine analysis, excellent professionals at the helm of affairs, however, the use of the word 'ludicrous' in this article has in my humble view made an interesting argument sound otherwise and is clearly (not) befitting the column. And may I condemn the use of this word (whether it makes any impact or otherwise) in the context of the article and the judgment.
Commenting on tax positions and analysing the same, I strongly believe that such terms should not be used and if used, the site should moderate/edit the same. I am sure that most indirect tax experts would clearly believe that there is a sound ground of argument and by any sense of the English language would the same not peter towards 'ludicrous'.
I do (not) want to discuss the nitty gritty of the argument but suffice to say that I agree with Vyasji's comments.
A last word to TIOL team - All experts analysing tax positions should note that netizens who follow this site could get easily influenced by the contents herein, would take the inputs as a mother statement and hence more and absolute responsibility on the team to ensure against such clearly avoidable terms and words.”
We fully agree with you Sir. We apologize for our erroneous analysis and our comment on the legal position adopted by the appellants before the CESTAT. In fact we realized the gravity of the mistake committed in our analysis and deleted that portion of the story immediately. Since, we carried the analysis and retracted a part of it later we owe an answer to the Netizens for this somersault and an apology to the counsel and also the alert netizen for condemning our mistake.
Once in a while mistakes do happen; after all to err is human. However, we assure the Netizens who religiously follow our case analysis that whenever there is a mistake we shall not hesitate in admitting it and retract glaring errors with an apology.
As Rudyard Kipling says,
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same
While we are humbled by the accolades we receive, we also thank the Netizens profusely for their brickbats. They will keep us on our toes.