TIOL-DDT 1410 · 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 color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 1410 </font><br> 27.07.2010 <br> Tuesday </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Classification of Aseptic Packaging Paper - CBEC Clarifies </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THIS</strong> issue was deliberated upon at the Conference of the Chief Commissioners of Customs on Tariff and Allied Matters held at Mumbai on 8th March 2010. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board clarifies that “Aseptic packaging papers coated, impregnated or covered with plastics which are bleached, weighing more than 150 g/m 2 “ are classifiable under the Tariff Item 4811 51 00 and those “Aseptic Packaging papers coated, impregnated or covered with plastics which are other than ‘bleached, weighing more than 150 g/m 2' “ are classifiable under Tariff Item 4811 59 00. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=25&filename=notification/custom/2010/cuscir10_021.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC Circular No. 21/2010-Cus., Dated: July 26, 2010</font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Import of 'Worn Clothing' – CBEC withdraws Circular but CBEC website not aware</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> CBEC's official website goes to sleep by about 4pm every day. Even if the CBEC is abolished on Friday evening, the website can report it only after 11 am on Monday. Yesterday the Board issued a Circular on import of worn clothing, but by evening requested the websites not to upload it as it is being revised. By that time, the CBEC website was closed and the Circular is very much available on their web site and perhaps this is the website which is going to run the GST! </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Out of abundant respect for the Board, we don't bring you the withheld Circular. </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">EOUs move from Customs to Central Excise - What about Service Tax? </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AS</strong> per instructions contained in the Board Circular No.31/2003 dated 07.04.2003, in the port cities, the administrative control over all the EOUs including the EHTP and STP units falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, is with the Commissioner of Customs and at other places, the administrative control over EOU/EHTP/STP units is with the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise. The only exception has been in respect of Bangalore Customs where the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore is having Administrative Control over all such units within his territorial jurisdiction. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In order to facilitate an uniform and better administration and control of such EOUs and also to facilitate the shift to Goods and Services Taxes (GST) regime in future, the Board has decided that the EOU units functioning in the jurisdiction of Customs including port cities, will henceforth be under the Administrative Control of the respective jurisdictional Central Excise Commissionerate with effect from 31-07-2010. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Bangalore Central Excise I Commissionerate has issued a Trade Notice No.27/2010, stipulating that all the 100% EOUs and EHTPs shall stand transferred to the jurisdiction of the respective Range/Division of Bangalore-I/II/III Central Excise Commissionerates and that all STPs shall stand transferred to Service Tax Commissionerate, Bangalore with effect from 31.07.2010. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It seems that after the issue of this Trade Notice, Director General, Export Promotion has clarified that all EOUS/EHTP and STPI Units presently under the administrative control of Bangalore Customs Commissionerate shall be transferred to respective jurisdictional Central Excise Commissionerate only. So the Bangalore Commissioner has issued a corrigendum to his Trade Notice. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A Departmental officer asks, “While Service Tax matters pertaining to the LTU fall under Bangalore LTU Commte there is no reason why Service Tax Matters pertaining to EOU / EHTP / STPI also should not go to concerned CE Division. This will reduce the huge backlog in Service TAX REFUNDS and Demands of ST Commte of BANGALORE. All Software companies will also benefit if jurisdiction goes to Central Excise.” Seems to be a really concerned officer. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2010/tradenotice27.htm">Bangalore I Central Excise Commissioner's Trade Notice No. 27/2010 dated 10.06.2010</a> and <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2010/CorrigendumNotice27.htm" target="_blank">corrigendum Dated 28.06.2010</a>. </font></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Intaxication at Apex Level – Revenue wins hands Down – Seagram loses Sober war</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>'PASSPORT</strong>' is not what you need to go out of the country; <strong><font color="#FF6633">‘Black and White'</font></strong> has nothing to do with your income;<font color="#FF6633"><strong> VAT</strong></font> is not related to taxes; <font color="#FF6633"><strong>Black Dog</strong></font> is not exactly what Maneka Gandhi would fight for and there is nothing really special about <font color="#FF6633"><strong>Something Special</strong></font>. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">These are all brand names of premium alcoholic drinks and were all together in the intaxicating precincts of the Supreme Court. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In a major decision in favour of the Revenue, the Supreme Court held that valuation of imported CAB - Concentrate of Alcoholic Beverages, was no more an issue as the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed the party's appeal against the Tribunal order. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This Judgement was delivered yesterday and <strong>TIOL</strong> brings it to you today. </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=11182" target="_blank">Breaking News</a></strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is CCE, Delhi dictating as to which cases should be transferred to Call Book? </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“<strong>WE</strong> got this mail from a <em><strong>concerned</strong></em> Departmental officer. </font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>The <em><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2003/excircular719.htm" target="_blank">Circular no. 719/35/2003-CX, dated May 26, 2003</a></em> issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs on the subject</strong> ‘Checks on delays – <font color="#FF6633"><strong>Maintenance of Call Book – instructions – reg</strong></font>.' <font color="#663399"><strong>has the following to say – </strong></font></font></p> <blockquote> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“… <strong>It was further clarified</strong> vide <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/1995/excircular162.htm" target="_blank"><em>Circular No. 162/73/95-CX., dated 14-12-1995</em></a></strong> that only following type of categories of cases can be transferred to Call Book :- </font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) Cases in which the Department has gone in appeal to the appropriate authority, </font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) Cases where injunction has been issued by Supreme Court/ High Court/CEGAT, etc. </font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iii) Cases where audit objections are contested. </font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iv) Cases where the Board has specifically ordered the same to be kept pending and to be entered into the call book.” </font></p> </blockquote> <p><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I happened to go through the Circular dated 14.12.1995 referred to above and to my surprise this is how that Circular ends – </font></strong></p> <blockquote> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“2. The<font color="#FF6633"><strong> Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Delhi has requested for inclusion of certain categories of cases</strong></font> for </font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) Cases in which the Department has gone in appeal to the appropriate authority. </font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) Cases where injunction has been issued by Supreme Court/ High Court/ CEGAT, etc. </font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iii) Cases where audit objections are contested. </font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iv) Cases where the Board has specifically ordered the same to be kept pending and to be entered into the call book. </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Surprisingly, the said Circular dated 14.12.1995 does not say that the Board agrees with the inclusion of the categories as suggested by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Delhi but merely communicates his suggestion, which as can be seen, has become the unwritten law in Call Book matters. </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought that the Board Circular dated 14.12.1995 which I am referring to and published in the private journals and Taxation websites was an incomplete one. I, therefore, went through the CBEC website and found that nothing was amiss. See <a href="http://cbec.gov.in/excise/cx-circulars/cx-circulars-95/162-95-cx.htm">http://cbec.gov.in/excise/cx-circulars/cx-circulars-95/162-95-cx.htm</a>. So, it all boils down to one thing and that is that the Board has unwittingly acceded to the requests made by CCE & C, Delhi. </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Unfortunately, I could not lay hands on the Hindi version of the referred Circular, that is, if at all it exists!” </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Would the Board like to retrospectively amend its Circular dated 14.12.1995?” </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"> – Wednesday'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"><strong><font color="#663399">Central Excise</font></strong> </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Excess Duty paid - No mens rea - No penalty under Section 11AC- High Court </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Commissioner of Central Excise is the appellant. The only issue is relating to the deletion of penalty. The appellant seeks to raise the following substantial question of law: </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was right in concluding that no penalty was imposable, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no discretion is available on the quantum of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, in the decision in <em>Union of India vs. M/s.Dharamendra Textile Processors</em> <strong><em>(<font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=32&filename=legal/sc/2008/2008-TIOL-192-SC-CX-LB.htm" target="_blank">2008-TIOL-192-SC-CX-LB</a></font>)</em></strong>?" </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wealth Tax</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Did commercial complex figure in list of assets prior to amendment in provisions of Sec 2(e)(a) - Yes, assessee not entitled to benefits of 2(e)(a) as amendment is prospective: ITAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> issue in the instant case relates to wealth tax. And the question before the Tribunal is - <strong>Whether prior to the amended provisions of section 2(e)(a) the commercial complexes were very much “assets” and the amended provisions, which excludes the commercial complex from the definition of “assets”, are prospective in effect. Whether as per the agreement between the assessee and the other party it can be construed that the agreement was for the lease of the property and hence benefit provided in section 2(e)(a) of the Act will not be available to the assessee as per the amended provisions of section 2(ea).</strong> </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">Cenvat Credit on ‘Garden Maintenance Service' is available under CCR, 2004 – Revenue's request for constituting a Larger Bench is totally irrelevant and unacceptable as contrary judgments referred to are ones pertaining to same appeals of assessee and which orders have been remanded by High Court: CESTAT</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Tomorrow with more <strong>DDT</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><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>