TIOL-DDT 1519 · 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 align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 1519 </font><br>
31.12.2010 <br>
Friday </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Environmental Regulations – Creation of Single Window Mechanism for E-Waste </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>Commerce Ministry in consultation with the Ministry of Environment and Forests has decided that: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) All SPCBs should adopt an integrated system of granting environmental clearances. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) Dev. Commissioners of SEZs to permit the officials of the SPCB to carry out surprise inspections <strong>. </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iii) Unit Approval Committee in the SEZs to include a representative of the SPCBs for providing information related to regulatory requirements under the Environmental laws and to monitor the progress of grant of such clearances. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It was also agreed that the Unit Approval Committee in the SEZs would include a representative of the SPCBs for providing the required information, related to regulatory requirements under the environmental laws. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Absence of proof reading is not the exclusive hallmark of the Revenue Department. The DOC Circular refers to a meeting held on 8 th October 2001 ; what they mean is 2010 . </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=260&filename=sez/sez_instructions/sez09ins073.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Department of Commerce Instruction No. 73, Dated: December 29, 2010 </strong></font></a></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Export of Cotton Yarn – DGFT Issues Corrigendum to Notification No. 14 </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT</strong> has issued a Corrigendum to Notification No. 14(RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 22.12.2010, by which the exporters who have obtained Registration Certificate from Textile Commissioner, Mumbai <strong>on </strong>1 st December, 2010 would also now be permitted to export Cotton Yarn. Earlier notification of 22.12.2010 permitted such exporters who would have got RC before 1 st December, 2010. Other conditions like quantity limit of RC so issued, validity of RC will remain the same. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2010/dgft10not015.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT Notification No. 15(RE–2010)/2009-2014, Dated: December 29, 2010 </strong></font></a></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Conditions and modalities for registration of contracts of cotton with DGFT . </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>RECENTLY</strong>, DGFT had issued Notification No. 12 (RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 16.12.2010 and Policy Circular No. 6(RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 16.12.2010 for registration of contracts for export of cotton. The export of raw cotton is to be limited to 55 lakh bales during the cotton season 2010-11. Accordingly, it has been decided to invite applications for grant of registration certificate for export of cotton. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Allocation will be made after scrutiny of applications, as per the following criteria:- </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) Allocation will be done on a prorata basis with a ceiling of 1,00,000 bales per IEC and floor of 500 bales per IEC . Therefore, no application below 500 bales will be considered. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) Exporters who did not export full quantity for which registration certificate was obtained by them from Textile Commissioner, Mumbai in October, 2010, would be disincentivised by reduction of their pro-rata quantity by the percentage of such default. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=46&filename=notification/dgft/2010/dgft10cir009.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT Circular No. 9/(RE-2010) 2009-14, Dated: December 29, 2010 </strong></font></a></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Seniority Lists in CBEC – A Perennial Row – IRS is IFS - The lifeline of law is not logic or reason but life's experience and commonsense. </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>YOU</strong> talk to any Customs and Central Excise officer and there is a tale of woe of injustice, being left out, stagnation, lack of promotion and seniority disputes pending at some court or other. It may as well be called the IFS – the Indian Frustrated Service. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let us start at the bottom of the greasy IRS pole. You have the Assistant Commissioner – 50 percent of Assistant Commissioner posts are filled by direct recruitment and 50 percent by promotion and this promotion channel includes various cadres like Superintendents of Central Excise, Superintendents of Customs and Appraisers of Customs – even among them, some are promotees and some direct recruits. And seniority is a big issue and there is a case pending in every possible forum. The cases have gone right up to the Supreme Court and keep bouncing back in Tribunals and High Courts. Right from Tax Assistants to Chief Commissioners, everybody has a seniority problem. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In this situation, the Board finds it almost impossible to promote officers as there is some litigation in some court. Board, with judicial approval, started <em>ad hoc </em> promotions, but how long can you continue with adhocism? Today Assistant Commissioners are promoted on <em>adhoc </em> basis and those promoted on <em>adhoc </em> basis are further promoted on adhoc basis. So from AC to CC, they are all <em>ad hoc </em>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Recently the Delhi High Court had to decide yet another interesting case on this seniority issue. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On an application filed by Mr. PR Chandrasekharan , a Commissioner, CAT, Delhi, in an order in 2007 had directed the Government to re-convene the DPC particularly for the next higher posts for which earlier DPCs had been held after 22.11.1996. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, this was an impossible situation for the Government and so they approached the Delhi High Court, against the CAT order. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Delhi High Court made some very interesting observations: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) Providence had ordained that litigation would continue and indeed it has. The Union of India took excessive time to re-workout the promotions in the 50% promotee quota in Group A Service. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) Now, the principle of selection on merit is not a jurisprudential concept, but flows out of the office memorandums issued by the Government from time to time. In other words, what should be the principle to determine merit is a matter of policy and the Government/Executive is free to lay down a criteria subject of course to the same being reasonable. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iii) The lifeline of law is not logic or reason but life's experience and commonsense. Rules of law are meant to sub-serve the cause of justice and it is not unknown to judges to be encountering situations where logic and reason have to be abandoned and a practical approach adopted to resolve an issue. </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iv) Problems encountered by Judges as are also encountered by the Executive and faced with a situation where the logic or the reason of a rule of law leads to a breakdown situation, the executive decision to ignore the applicable rule and craft a decision which does justice has been accepted by the Courts. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(v) The regular promotions can only be made after finalization of the seniority list for the reason only when the persons in the zone of consideration are ascertained with clarity, can the further process of evaluating them on a given criteria be completed. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(vi) Under no circumstances can it be that directly recruited officers would earn promotion in the same panel year on a different criteria for merit and the promotee officers would earn promotion in the same panel year on a different criteria. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(vii) Thus, not on the letter of the law or the logic, but guided by the situation and requiring a situationalist approach to be adopted, we are of the opinion that the promotion order dated 3.5.2002 has to be upheld and maintained. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court had some good words for the Counsel of PR Chandrasekharan - <strong><font color="#FF6633">we find good logic advanced by Shri C.Harishankar , learned counsel who very ably espoused the cause of Shri P.R.Chandrasekharan and Shri C.P.Srivastava , with Shri Sunil Uke getting free benefit of good counsel! </font></strong></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Finally all this good counsel did not impress the Court and the Government won the battle – maybe temporarily. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And incidentally today, Mr. PR Chandrasekharan is not with the Department – we are told that he got relieved yesterday to join the CESTAT as Member (T). </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We welcome Mr. PRC , as Hon'ble Member of the CESTAT – let the Department continue to deal with its seniority problems – Mr. PRC (as he is fondly called) will have more weighty issues to decide now as Member of CESTAT. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(See
<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=78&filename=pitara/sercaselaw/caselaw/2010/2010-TIOL-833-HC-DEL-SERVICE.htm"><font size="1"><em>2010-TIOL-833-HC-DEL-SERVICE</em></font></a><em>) </em></font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBDT Chairman Retires Today – FM Organizes Farewell Function </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> dynamic Finance Minister is never short of ideas. Yesterday he organized a function to bid adieu to the Chairman of CBDT who is retiring today, which was attended by the top brass of the Revenue Department apart from all Secretaries in the Ministry and the Advisor. The FM was surprised that there was no such tradition in the Finance Ministry, whereas in the Defence Ministry, he had found that retiring senior officers were sent out in style. The FM has started a great tradition and let us hope it will be continued. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">After all one who has reached the exalted position of the Chairman of the Board should be given a fitting and honourable farewell, which he should remember for the rest of his life. </font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
<strong><strong><font color="#006600">Jurispruden</font><font color="#FF6633" size="4">tiol</font><font color="#006600"> - Monday's cases</font></strong></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399"><strong><font color="#663399"><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></strong></font></strong></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>Once the goods are held as not excisable there is no question of going into aspects of valuation – Revenue appeal dismissed: CESTAT </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong> department has alleged that the appellant have indulged in under-valuation by clearing windows made out of R-series window channels as per the size of sliding windows and cleared the same in a dismantled/knocked down condition from their factory premises. The glass panes required for the windows were purchased and directly sent to the site where all parts were assembled in their respective positions. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399">Income Tax </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Sec 28( va ) - Whether compensation received on termination of Joint Venture with non-resident is capital receipt - NO, it is revenue receipt: ITAT </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong> issue before the Tribunal is - Whether compensation received upon the termination of Joint Venture Company is a capital or a revenue receipt. And the Tribunal's verdict goes in favour of 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"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>There is nothing in section 112(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the mandatory lower-limit for imposition of penalty – Commissioner's order imposing a penalty of Rs.2000 /- against a duty confirmation of Rs . 2500/- is legal and proper: CESTAT </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>respondent imported a consignment of mobile phones. The department alleged mis -declaration of value against the respondent and accordingly proceedings were initiated. The Commissioner of Customs confirmed the differential duty of Rs . 2,500/- and imposed a penalty of Rs . 2,000/- against the respondent. Revenue has challenged the imposition of penalty amount on the ground that as per Section 112 (iii) the penalty should not be less than Rs . 5,000/- if the differential duty is less than Rs . 5,000/-. </font></p>
<p align="center">
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399"><strong><font color="#663399"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/christmas_tiol_2010_v2.jpg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="600" height="450" hspace="5" border="0" align="center"></font></strong></font></strong></font>
<p align="justify"></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>See our columns Monday for the judgements </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#FF6666">Until Monday with more DDT </font></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice Yearend. </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">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </a></font></p>
</body>
</html>