TIOL-DDT 1573 · 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 1573 </font><br>
22.03.2011 <br>
Tuesday</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Online transmission of DES (Advance Authorization), EPCG and DEPB at 7 new port locations with effect from 21.3.2011 </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AS</strong> and when Customs (CBEC) have conveyed their readiness to implement on-line message exchange between Customs and DGFT, Policy Circulars have been issued from time to time by DGFT indicating the names and Port Codes of such Customs Ports where EDI facility would be available.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seven new locations are now added to the seventy five existing locations for on-line transmission of DES (Advance Authorization), EPCG and DEPB Authorization. They are: </font></p>
<table border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sl.No</font></strong></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Name of new ICES Location </font></strong></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">LOCODE <br>
</font></strong><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(Customs Port Codes ) </font></strong></p> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pipavav Port </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">INPAV1 </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ACC Goa </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">INGOI4 </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ICD Thar Dry Port, Sanand </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">INSAU6 </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Paradeep Port </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">INPRT1 </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ICD, Marripalam, Guntur </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">INGNR6 </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ACC Coimbatore </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">INCJB4 </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">7 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Gangavaram Port</font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">INGGVI </font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thus with effect from 21.03.2011, it shall be mandatory that: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ DEPB application in respect of shipping bills issued on or after 21/03/11 from these 7 ports has to be filed in EDI mode. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ All authorizations for DES (Advance authorization), EPCG, and DEPB in respect of these 7 ports issued on or after 21/03/2011 by Regional Authorities would be communicated to Customs on-line.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=46&filename=notification/dgft/2010/dgft10cir026.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT Policy Circular No. 26 (RE-2010)/2009-14, Dated: March 21, 2011 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Central Excise - Service of Communication on Department by appellant – Section 37C ;applicable - CESTAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>SECTION </strong>37C of the Central Excise Act reads as, </font></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Service of decisions, orders, summons, etc.</strong> - (1) Any decision or order passed or any summons or notices issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be served, - </font></em></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>a) by tendering the decision, order, summons or notice, or sending it by registered post with acknowledgment due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised agent, if any; </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">b) if the decision, order summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clause (a), by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous part of the factory or warehouse or other place of business or usual place of residence of the person for whom such decision, order, summons or notice, as the case may be is intended; </font></em></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">c) if the decision, order summons or notice cannot be served in the manner provided in clauses (a) and (b), by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice. </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(2) Every decision or order passed or any summons or notice issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which the decision, order, summons or notice is tendered or delivered by post or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1). </font></em></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In a case before the CESTAT, the appellant sent a letter by speed post on 18 th May 2007 to the Assistant Commissioner communicating their advocate's address and their address in USA for future communications. But the Department did not serve its adjudication order on the address given by them. The appellant claimed that it received the order dated 31 st March 2009 on 12th march 2010 and they filed the appeal on 16 th April 2010. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The question is whether the appeal was filed within the period of limitation. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The DR argued that the appeal is barred by limitation; hence is not maintainable on the ground that the impugned order has been passed on 31st March, 2009 and the appeal is filed on 16th April, 2010. He contended that the department has not received the letter dated 3.5.2007 sent by the appellant and burden of proof that the letter has been served on the department is on the appellant which they have failed to do so. He further submitted that the appellants cannot take the shelter of provisions of Section 37(C) of the Central Excise Act as these provisions are only for the Department. Therefore, the appellant cannot take the benefit of mode of communication of Section 37(C) ibid. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tribunal was not impressed and observed, <em>“it is clear that the provision is for service of decisions, orders, summons, etc. which means that this section deals with the mode of communication. We are not in agreement with the learned DR that there are two parameters for communication under the same Act one for the appellant and another for the department. In the eyes of law the litigants are on equal footing and there cannot be two parameters for rival sides. As the section itself says that service of decisions, orders, summons etc. The letter sent to the appellant is covered under this Act under " etc ". We found the appellants have compiled the provisions of Section 37(C) ibid by showing postal receipt of letter dated 3.5.2007. Therefore, we hold that the appellant has been able to prove that they have communicated to the department of their Advocate's address and their address in USA for communication. The department has failed to serve the impugned order on these addresses to the appellants. Therefore, the service effected by the department of the impugned order is defective within the provisions of Section 37(C) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.”</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Many departmental officers feel that the CESTAT decision is beyond the Act. They feel that Section 37C applies only to decisions, orders, summons etc., issued under the ACT . A letter from the assessee communicating the address is not an order or decision under the Act. Further, the ‘etc.' is there in the marginal heading of the sub-section, which is not really the law. What is important is what is stated in the section and not in the marginal heading. [Please see <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=11003" target="_blank">DDT 1382</a></strong> <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=11003">- <em>Heads or Tails – Which is More Legal – The Heading of a Section or its Contents</em></a><em>?] </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This seems to be correct, but how does an appellant staying in USA communicate his address to the Department? Is he expected to fly down and submit his address to the Assistant Commissioner? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We bring you today this landmark decision delivered on 15.03.2011. </font></p>
<p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please see<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=34&filename=legal/cestat/2011/2011-TIOL-356-CESTAT-MUM.htm" target="_blank"> 2011-TIOL-356-CESTAT-MUM </a></font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">April 14 - Dr Ambedkar's Birthday Declared a Holiday </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> has declared Thursday, the 14 th April 2011 as a closed holiday for all Central Government offices including Industrial Establishments. This holiday is also being notified under Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Government has been notifying this day as a holiday every year since 1990. For the last twenty one years, the government had been separately notifying this holiday. Why can't it be included in the general list of closed holidays published before the beginning of every year? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There was a strange case before the Central Information Commission on this issue. The applicant asked the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions:- </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What is the criterion for declaring birthdays of departed leaders as gazetted holidays? Do leaders like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose or Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru not fulfil the criterion to have their birthdays also as national holidays on lines of birthdays of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. BR Ambedkar? Is it fair that birthdays of leaders like Mahatma Gandhi or Dr. BR Ambedkar are made holidays contrary to their noble ideas of hard work? </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Ministry replied:- </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ There is a policy decision that no holiday should be declared on the birthday of any national leader other than that of Mahatma Gandhi. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ Holiday on Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's birthday: It is not one of the regular annual holidays. However, since 1990 this occasion has been declared as a closed holiday for all Central Government administrative offices. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The persistent applicant pleaded, “I appeal that details and rules may be clearly mentioned under which Dr. B. R. Ambedkar's birthday is being observed as a closed holiday since 1990” </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Ministry gave a somewhat curious response:- </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per RTI Act Section 8 (I) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, therefore, under the provisions of Act, no information can be provided to the first Para of your appeal. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Government feels that disclosure on the holiday would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India!!! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This certainly is not the way to celebrate the Great man's birthday. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/pdfdocs/wnew/ambedkar.pdf" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DOPTOM in F No. 12/2/2011-JCA-2, Dated: March 21, 2011 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Service Tax - Lawyers to go on Strike </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DELHI</strong> advocates have decided to go on strike on March 24 against imposition of Service Tax on them. This was not the first time that tax was imposed on them – perhaps what they don't understand is that now representation before the court is also taxable. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">When the then Finance Minister Chidambaram was asked why he had not imposed Service Tax on lawyers, he asked, “what service are they providing?” </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In our Seminar in Mumbai, last week, I thanked the Chairman, CBEC for statutorily recognising that lawyers are providing <strong>service</strong>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Though Chidambaram's retort was taken as a joke, he was actually stating a solemn truth. Lawyers are officers of the court and their duty is to assist the court; so this service of assisting the court cannot be really taxed. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Lawyers going on strike is perhaps contempt of LAW. If the lawyers feel that the tax is illegal, they should use their legal brains and get the levy quashed. If the levy is legal, like all law abiding citizens, they should pay the tax. The fact is many of the lawyers have not understood the implications of the levy. </font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> GST Bill in LokSabha Today</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>FINANCE</strong> Minister Pranab Mukherjee is likely to introduce a bill to amend the Constitution of India for GST. This would be the Constitution (One Hundred and Fifteenth Amendment) Bill, 2011.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">He is also likely to move that the Finance Bill 2011 be passed. </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"> – Wednesday'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">Customs</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">EPCG
Licence - DGFT has power to amend licence retrospectively: High Court </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> larger Bench decision of the CESTAT is mutually contradictory, because the larger Bench on the one hand holds that the customs authorities cannot challenge the powers of licensing authorities to amend the licence and on the other hand holds at the instance of the customs authorities that the licensing authorities do not have the power to amend the licence retrospectively. Such an order of the CESTAT which is mutually contradictory cannot be sustained in so far as it holds that the licensing authorities do not have the power to amend the licence retrospectively. </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="#FF6600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) can be made on presumption that assessee was liable to tax deduction at source u/s 194C - NO, unless Revenue brings evidence on record: ITAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> issue before the Tribunal is - Whether disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) can be made on presumption that assessee was liable to TDS u/s 194C. NO is the Tribunal's answer. </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">Assessee exporting goods through merchant exporter under an agreement that service tax of services engaged by exporter would be borne by manufacturer – Refund claim filed u/N otfn 41/2007-ST by manufacturer - No other person can claim refund of service tax paid on services availed by exporter for exporting goods – Restricted view to be taken: CESTAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> assessee is engaged in manufacture of DOC (Soya Extraction Meal) and same were being exported through merchant exporter. During the course of export, the merchant exporter availed certain taxable services. There was an agreement between the assessee and the merchant-exporter which inter alia provided for payment of service tax by the assessee in respect of above services availed by the merchant-exporter for the export of goods manufactured and supplied by the assessee. </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 Time. </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>