TIOL-DDT 1459 · 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 1459 </font><br> 05.10.2010 <br> Tuesday </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Renowned Shooters - Exemption for rifles, pistols, ammunition </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CERTAIN</strong> sports goods imported by certain sportsmen and sports associations are wholly exempted from Customs duties by <em>Notification No. 146/94 – CUS dated 13.07.1994</em>. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now the Government has amended this notification to stipulate that items like rifles, pistols, ammunition, etc, imported by a renowned shooter will get the exemption if he produces a certificate from the National Rifle Association of India that the importer is a renowned shooter (as defined in the ˜explanation” appended to the newly inserted proviso. And of course these goods are to be used for training purpose. </font></p> <p align="left"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2010/ctariff10_101.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">NOTIFICATION NO. 101/2010-CUSTOMS Dated: October 01, 2010 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Duty-free Import of Rice to continue till 1st October 2011</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AS</strong> per Sl. No. 22AC of the table of <em><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2002/ctariff02_021.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 21/2002-cus dated 1.3.2002</a></strong></em>, imported rice attracts 'nil' rate of duty and as per clause (iag) of the preamble to the notification, the exemption is not applicable on or after 1st October 2010. Now the Government has amended this clause (iag) to extend this date till 1st October 2011. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But strangely this notification has two clauses with the same (iag). <strong>DDT</strong> had pointed this out when the second (iag) was inserted by <em><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2010/ctariff10_021.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 21/2010 -Cus dated 27.2.2010</a></strong></em>. <strong>[<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=10514" target="_blank">DDT 1309 02.03.2010</a>]</strong> </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Unfortunately, the Board does not seem to have updated versions of their own notifications! </font></p> <p align="left"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2010/ctariff10_102.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">NOTIFICATION NO. 102/2010-CUSTOMS Dated: October 01, 2010 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Concessional rates of duty for imports from ASEAN Countries - Indonesia added to list </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> had notified concessional customs duty on imports from Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand vide <em><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2009/ctariff09_153.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 153/2009-Cus dated 31st December 2009</a></strong></em> in accordance with provisions of the Customs Tariff [Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India] Rules, 2009, published in the <em><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2009/cnt09_189.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 189/2009-Customs (N.T.), dated the 31st December 2009</a></strong></em>. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Later Vietnam and Myanmar were added to the list and now Indonesia is also added. </font></p> <p align="left"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2010/ctariff10_103.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">NOTIFICATION NO. 103/2010-CUSTOMS Dated: October 01, 2010 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exemption to Imports From Nepal – Why Notification superseded 15 days after issue? </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AS</strong> per <em><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2002/ctariff02_040.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 40/2002 – Cus dated 12.04.2002</a></strong></em>, certain goods from Nepal are exempted from Customs Duty. This Notification was superseded and a new notification was issued – just a fortnight ago – <em><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2010/ctariff10_094.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 94/2010-Cus dated 15.09.2010</a></strong></em><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2010/ctariff10_094.htm">.</a> And now this notification is superseded and a new notification is issued. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What was the need to supersede Notification No. 94/2010 after 15 days of its issue? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Government seems to be smart! </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Original Notification No 40/2002 granted exemption from the whole of Customs Duty and the whole of Special Additional Duty under Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act. So did Notification No. 94/2010. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But the difference between 2002 and 2010 was that in 2005, Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act was omitted from the statute, but the Government while issuing the Notification No. 94/2010 obviously forgot about it and granted exemption for the duty leviable under Section 3A <font color="#FF6633"><strong>which did not exist</strong></font>. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now perhaps they have realised this and instead of making an amendment to the Notification No. 94/2010 – totally superseded it and issued a new notification apparently to cover up the lapse. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification making needs to be a little more serious affair. </font></p> <p align="left"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2010/ctariff10_104.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">NOTIFICATION NO. 104/2010-CUSTOMS Dated: October 01, 2010 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Export Duty on Raw Cotton - Exempted</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>RAW</strong> Cotton and Cotton waste were exempted from export duty by Notification No. 100/89 dated 1.3.1989. The government withdrew this exemption and subjected raw cotton to an export duty of Rs. 2500 and cotton waste to 3 percent adv, by <strong><em><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2010/ctariff10_059.htm" target="_blank">Notifications 59/2010 – cus dated 10.05.2010</a></em></strong> and <em><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2010/ctariff10_044.htm" target="_blank">44/2010 dated 09.04.2010</a></strong></em>. Now both these Notifications are rescinded. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In effect </font></p> <blockquote> <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/2010/ctariff10_105.htm" target="_blank">NOTIFICATION NO. 105/2010-CUSTOMS Dated: October 01, 2010</a></strong> exempts raw cotton and cotton waste from export duty by amending Notification No. 100/89-cus. This exemption was earlier withdrawn by Notification No. 43/2010 – cus. Now the position prior to 9.4.2010 is restored. [ This new Notification mentions that S. Nos. 15A and 15B are inserted after S. No. 15 of Notification No. 100/89-Cus. Ironically, S. Nos. 14 and 15 and entries relating thereto were omitted by virtue of <em><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2010/ctariff10_043.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 43/2010-Cus dated 9.4.2010</a></strong></em>. Now where do you add this now?!] </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/2010/ctariff10_106.htm" target="_blank">NOTIFICATION NO. 106/2010-CUSTOMS Dated: October 01, 2010</a></strong> – rescinds <em><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2010/ctariff10_044.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 44/2010-Customs, dated the 9th April, 2010</a></strong></em>, which prescribed an effective rate of 3 percent export duty for cotton waste. Now this is not required as it is totally exempted. </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/2010/ctariff10_107.htm" target="_blank">NOTIFICATION NO. 107/2010-CUSTOMS Dated: October 01, 2010</a></strong> - rescinds <strong><em><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2010/ctariff10_059.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 59/2010-Customs, dated the 10th May, 2010</a></em></strong>, which prescribed an effective rate of Rs. 2500 for raw cotton. This is also exempted now. </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Former Central Excise Commissioner Sentenced to Four Years RI </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>FORMER</strong> Central Excise Commissioner Ms LR Mithran was sentenced to a four year Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000 for accepting a bribe of Rs. 8 lakhs from an assessee for reducing his duty liability from Rs. 36 Crores to Rs. 9 Crores. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CBI registered the case in 1999 and now the seventy year old Madam Mithran is in jail. This once powerful woman always fashionably dressed (even yesterday in Court when the verdict was pronounced) will now have to wear jail clothes and will be treated like any other criminal. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the Departmental proceedings, she was awarded a major penalty of reducing pension by 25% for ten years! </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In modern society, punishment is not retributive but exemplary – so that others learn. Will they? </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Delay in sanction of prosecution - CVC Guidelines </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CVC </strong>has reminded all Government Departments that as per the existing guidelines, the Departments are required to formulate their tentative views within three weeks of the receipt of the request from CBI for sanction of prosecution and seek the advice of the Commission. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CVC notes that these instructions are not followed. So the CVC has decided that if it does not receive the communication within three weeks, it will suo moto tender its advice. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per CVC's own report, there are 45 cases pending sanction of prosecution for over four months. Of these five are from Revenue Departments – 4 from CBEC and one from CBDT. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/pdfdocs/wnew/cvc_03_2010.pdf" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CVC Circular No.33/09/10 Dated September 28 2010 </font></strong></a></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><strong><font color="#663399" 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">Customs</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Valuation – When deemed value is higher than transaction value, deemed value would get priority – Supreme Court </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> deemed value of the goods as shown by the Department would definitely prevail over the transactional value shown by the appellant in the present case. The crucial fact is the fact that similar goods imported by the appellant itself for identical specifications were higher than those declared by the appellant. The provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 would prevail over the transactional value when Rule 4 is not reflecting the prices on which such or like goods are sold or offered for sale. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Income Tax </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sec 276CC - Do issue of notice u/s 148 and thereon filing of return exonerate assessee of liability to prosecution for not filing return within due date as per Sec 139(1) - NO, says Madras High Court </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> issue before the Bench is - Whether the issue of notice u/s 148 and thereon filing of returns in response thereto exonerate the assessee of liability to prosecution u/s 276CC for not filing the returns within the statutory due date as per Section 139(1) of the Act. NO is the answer of the Bench. </font></p> <p><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">GTA - Who should pay tax - Consignor or Consignee? Depends on who engaged transporter and who is liable to pay freight - CESTAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>FOR</strong> determining as to which person is liable to pay service tax on GTA services in accordance with the provisions of Notification No.35/04-ST issued under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2 (1) (d) (v), the question which has to be answered is as to who had engaged the transporter and who was liable to pay freight to the transporter. </font></p> <p><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements </font></strong></p> <p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Tomorrow with more <strong>DDT</strong></font></p> <p><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>