TIOL-DDT 1396 · 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">
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<div align="justify">
<p><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong><font size="3">TIOL-DDT
1396</font><br>
</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>07.07.2010<br>
Wednesday </strong></font> </p>
</div>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Amount
paid during investigation – Can refund claim be time barred?</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DDT</strong>
received this mail –</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“I
am registered assessee. The preventive officers of the Central Excise Commissionerate
visited my unit in the year 2007 and booked a case alleging incorrect availment
of Cenvat credit on inputs/input services. Under their pressure, an amount of
Rs.55 lakhs was paid by me. A show cause cum demand notice invoking extended
period came to be issued six months down the line. The matter was decided by
the Commissioner recently in my favour. I, therefore, sought a refund of the
amount paid by me in the year 2007.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">To
my surprise, the jurisdictional officer informed me that the refund claim is
‘time barred’.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Obviously,
I could not have had a premonition that the Commissioner would drop the proceedings
and that was the reason that I did not file any refund claim in the year when
the case was booked and the SCN was issued. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
argument of the officer was that clause (ec) in section 11B does not cover situations
like mine and hence filing of refund claim by me after issue of Order-in-original
was time barred.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
term “relevant date” has been defined in section 11B, Explanation
(B)(ec) as under –</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>(ec)
in case where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of judgment, decree,
order or direction of appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court,
the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction;</em></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I
have, therefore, tried to argue my case thus – that the amount paid by
me during investigation is not duty but a deposit and hence there is no time
limit for claiming this amount back from the department. There is another reason
for it being called as deposit and that is that in the SCN the department itself
had sought appropriation of the amount towards the duty proposed to be recovered.
In fact, applying <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2004/excircular802.htm" target="_blank"><strong>Circular no. 802/35/2004-CX., dated 8-12-2004</strong></a>, in the matter
of return of pre-deposits, the Department should return the “deposits”
made during investigation within a period of three months of the disposal of
the SCNs in the assessee’s favour.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I
request that <strong>DDT</strong> highlights my plight and the Board issues
necessary instructions in this regard.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Hope
the CBEC helps him out</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nigerian
Senate Orders reinstatement of Sacked Lady Customs Officer </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
Nigerian Senate has ordered to reinstate Mrs Faith Umoh who was unlawfully retired
from the services of the Customs without following the prescribed procedure
for the retirement of customs officers. Mrs. Umoh had petitioned the senate
in July, 2008 that other officers with less qualifications and performance records
were left behind while she was wrongfully retired at the age of 47 years.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
Senator who moved the petition on her behalf said, “We thank God that
there is rule of law and efficacy of democracy. Without democracy where would
this have happened? Where will you have debated this injustice?”</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A
Netizen responded to the incident in VANGUARD, Nigeria's top Newspaper, “This
must have emanated from sexual harassment. Maybe, the dirty Mallam wanted to
sleep with her and she didn’t want to disgrace herself or risk her marital
vow and the animal got her retired. That’s how top executives use power
in Nigeria”</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Are
we not much better off?</font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>A
teacher and his attentive students</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/customs_ddt7july.jpg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="400" height="292" hspace="5" border="0" align="center"></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> French Customs’ winning entry in the 2010 WCO Photographic Competition:</font></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"> – Thursday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><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><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Central
Excise </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Refund
of pre-deposit – Commissioner directed to return the amount of Rs.15 lakhs
within a period of 30 days along with interest thereon @12% from October, 2005
to the date of actual refund: CESTAT</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">THIS
application has been filed by the appellant before the CESTAT seeking a direction
to be issued to the department in exercise of powers contained in Rule 41 of
the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 to return the amount of Rs.15 lakhs which
was pre-deposited by them under section 35F of the Central Excise Act. It is
further submitted that the Commissioner be directed to pay the appellant interest
@12% p.a from 19.10.2005 till the date of refund.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Income
Tax</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Are
forward contracts covered u/s 43A - Can losses arising from such contracts be
claimed as deduction for computing taxable income - YES, says ITAT</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">THE
issue before the Tribunal is - Whether forwards contracts are covered under
section 43A and whether losses arising from such contracts can be claimed as
deductions in computing taxable income. The second issue is that whether an
assessee can be held liable for a deferred tax liability on a retrospective
basis by reason of amendment u/s 115JB and be subject to interest u/s 234B.
And the third issue is - Whether the payments made towards creation of a reserve
set aside for ascertained capital expenditure can be deducted while computing
book profits u/s 115JB.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Customs</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Import
of Counterfeit Nokia E-51 mobile phones – Absolute confiscation proper
– since goods are to be destroyed, penalty reduced: CESTAT</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
appellant has imported Mobile Phones with brand name NOKIA Model E-51 to Chinese
origin but on examination it was found that it is not of Chinese origin but
it was made in Finland. Moreover, these mobile phones were found in loose packing.
On inquiry being made to the Nokia, their representative after examining the
IMEI number found that these IMEI numbers were never issued to by M/s Nokia
Ltd. The department has proceeded on the basis of the said report. Hence, no
infirmity in the impugned order, same is upheld. With regard to the penalty,
the penalty of Rs.3,50,000/- is on higher side and as the goods have been absolutely
confiscated which are to be destroyed, penalty reduced to Rs.70,000/”</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>See
our columns Tomorrow for the judgements</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until
Tomorrow with more DDT </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have
a nice day.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><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" target="_blank">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com
</a></font></p>
</body>
</html>