TIOL-DDT 1461 · 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 1461 </font><br> 07.10.2010 <br> Thursday </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exemption to Mints and Bank Note Printing Presses – CBEC Clarifies</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>SECURITY</strong> Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. (SPMCIL) is a wholly owned company of Government of India incorporated in January, 2006 by bringing together nine units of Government of India (four mints, two bank note printing presses, two security printing presses, and one security paper mill) under one corporate entity. Prior to their incorporation, these units were departmental organizations under the Currency and Coinage Division in the Department of Economics Affairs, Ministry of Finance.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">After the formation of the Corporation, there is a doubt in the field about the eligibility for excise and customs exemption, because the units no more technically belong to the Government of India. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC clarifies,</font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“The benefit of exemption from excise and customs duties under <em><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2006/etariff06_004.htm" target="_blank">notification Nos.4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006</a></strong></em> and<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=29&filename=notification/excise/2002/etariff02_021.htm" target="_blank"> <em><strong>21/2002-Customs dated 1.03.2002</strong></em></a> have been provided for units by name and the notification does not stipulate condition of government ownership of the said units. It is therefore clarified that the exemption under <em><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2006/etariff06_004.htm" target="_blank">Notification No.4 /2006-CE dated 1.3.2006</a></strong></em> (as amended) and <em><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=29&filename=notification/excise/2002/etariff02_021.htm" target="_blank">Notification No.21 /2002-Customs dated 1.03.2002</a></strong></em> (as amended) continue to be available to these units irrespective of their change in status from a factory belonging to the Central Government to an incorporated Company.” </font></p> </blockquote> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=25&filename=notification/custom/2010/instruction10_008.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC F. No.354 /48/2007- TRU Dated: May 10, 2010 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">More Than Three Crore Cases Pending in Indian Courts - When will we ever clear them? </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Indian Judicial Citadel is falling apart under its own weight. As on 31.3.2010, there are about 2.74 Crores cases pending in our District and Subordinate Courts and about 1 Crore cases will be added every year. Assuming that the Courts are able to dispose of 1 Crore cases every year, this pendency of 2.74 Crore cases will remain forever.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As on 31.3.2010, there are over 41 Lakh cases pending in our 21 High Courts. This will also be a perennial pendency as new cases are added.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The position seems to be slightly better in the Supreme Court where 55717 cases are pending as on 31.08.2010. The Supreme Court can dispose off about 80,000 cases a year. Maybe the Supreme Court can clear the pendency and as of now cases pending for more than one year are only 36,037. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">One reason for pendency could be the large number of vacancies unfilled in the Judiciary. In the Subordinate Judiciary, 17% of the posts are lying vacant. In the High Courts, the vacancy position is as high as 32% with only Himachal Pradesh having full strength.</font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Even the Supreme Court does not have full strength with two vacancies. </font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Our CESTAT and ITAT are not far behind!</font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The least we can do is – fill up those vacancies. </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">BPO - Bribe Procurement Outsourcing </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>BPO</strong> - Business Process Outsourcing is big business today and now there is Bribe Procurement Outsourcing. What smart Customs Officers do at ports and airports is to appoint agents on their behalf to collect bribes for them. Usually they are employees of CHAs or loaders and such low placed employees in airports. Normally in Central Excise, there are no agents, but in the recent case in Mumbai where two Superintendents and an Inspector of Central Excise were caught by the CBI, there was a fourth person – a poor graduate employed by the Central Excise officers to collect bribes on their behalf, for a monthly salary of Rs. 5,000/-. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As long as things go smooth, there is no problem, but once the CBI steps in, these poor collectors of bribes are left to fend for themselves. The officers get good lawyers to defend them, but these poor creatures languish in jails not even knowing what their crime was. </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">FEMA – Natwar Singh Loses - Supreme Court frowns on Delay Tactics - Noticee is not entitled to copies of documents not relied upon - The principles of natural justice are not intended to operate as roadblocks to obstruct statutory inquiries</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> appellant Natwar Singh is ROYAL, an EX IFS Officer and a Former Minister, facing charges under FEMA. He went right up to the Supreme Court against a notice issued by the FEMA Authority. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Supreme Court held, </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The extent of applicability of principles of natural justice depends upon the nature of inquiry, the consequences that may visit a person after such inquiry from out of the decision pursuant to such inquiry. The right to fair hearing is a guaranteed right. Every person before an Authority exercising the adjudicatory powers has a right to know the evidence to be used against him. However, disclosure not necessarily involves supply of the material. All such documents relied on by the Authority are required to be furnished to the noticee enabling him to show a proper cause as to why an inquiry should not be held against him though the Rules do not provide for the same. Such a fair reading of the provision would not amount to supplanting the procedure laid down and would in no manner frustrate the apparent purpose of the statute. Duty of adequate disclosure is only an additional procedural safeguard in order to ensure the attainment of the fairness and it has its own limitations. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Before parting :</strong> The Supreme Court observed, “We are constrained to take note of the fact that it is on account of continuous unreasonable requests on the part of the appellants, the Adjudicating Authority could not deal with the complaint expeditiously which is required to be disposed of within one year from the date of receipt of the complaint.” </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We bring you today this important Supreme Court judgement – Please see <strong><a href="http://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=11507" target="_blank">Breaking News</a> </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CESTAT has power to Grant Stay and Extension - but extension is not automatic - Karnataka High Court's gift to Consultants</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IT</strong> is now almost an axiom that Tribunal has inherent power to grant stay, but the Law states that such a stay is automatically vacated after 180 days. So the Legislature expected the Tribunal to decide the case within six months, but the ground reality is that the Tribunal is not able to decide the case even within six years! Now for no fault of the assessee, if the Tribunal is not able to decide the case within six months, should the assessee be punished? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The procedure was – just before the expiry of six months an application is made to the Tribunal to extend the stay. This Stay is listed and the matter is heard and the Tribunal invariably extends the stay. The precious time of the Tribunal is wasted and the Consultant gets money for <em><strong>arguing</strong></em> the case before the Tribunal for extension of stay. The Tribunal started giving orders that the stay will continue beyond 180 days till the case is decided. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Revenue did not like this and took the matter to the High Court which held that extension cannot be automatic. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now we are back to Square One. Before the expiry of 180 days, an application has to be filed for extension of stay and a hearing date is fixed when the case has to be argued. Obviously assessee cannot be made to suffer for Tribunal's delay and extension of stay will invariably be granted. Only one person benefits – the Consultant/lawyer. </font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We will bring you this judgement tomorrow.</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"> – Friday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p> <p><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">CESTAT</font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tribunal is empowered to grant stay and extension of Stay beyond 180 days, but extension is not automatic; it has to be specifically granted – High Court</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IF</strong> the assessee is not at fault and the Tribunal for reasons beyond its control is unable to dispose of the appeal within 180 days from the date of the grant of order of stay, the Tribunal cannot be held to be powerless to extend the order of stay granted on an application being made for extension of stay by the assessee . Merely because there is no express provision provided for extending stay granted earlier, it cannot be said that the appellate Tribunal has no power to extend the same. If an application is made by the assessee, the Tribunal has the power to extend the order of stay. The order of stay is not automatic. Therefore, even an order of extension of stay need not be automatic. </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">For statement u/s 133A to have evidentiary value it is necessary for Survey Officer to administer oath and record sworn statement: Delhi High Court </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> issue before the Delhi High Court is - Whether the statement recorded during the survey operation has no evidentiary value. Whether a statement u/s 133A to have evidentiary value it is necessary for the Survey Officer to administer oath and record sworn statement. The High Court ruled against the Revenue. </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">Restriction in Exim policy is applicable only to computers including personal computer and laptop computer and not to server: High Court </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>NO</strong> doubt, servers are also computers/ but servers are computers, which are meant for specific application in a network. They are entirely different from the personal computers and laptop computers, which are actually stand-alone equipments. Moreover, in commercial parlance "servers" are described as "servers" only and it is also pertinent to note that they don't have the keyboard and monitors. </font></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 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"><strong>vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com</strong> </a></font></p> </body> </html>