TIOL-DDT 1632 · 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="#663366" size="3">TIOL-DDT 1632</font><br> 17.06.2011<br> Friday</strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti Dumping Duty on ‘Metronidazole' from China </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ANTI</strong> Dumping Duty was imposed on ‘Metronidazole' originating in, or exported from China PR by Notification No. 61/2006–Customs, dated the 15 th June 2006. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This would have expired on 15.06.2011 and now the Government has acted <em>Just In Time</em> to extend it further till 14.06.2012. This extension notification was issued on 15.06.2011. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And this was certainly a pretty fast action by the Government. The Designated Authority gave its findings and recommended extension of the anti dumping duty for one more year, on 30 th May 2011 and within 15 days the CBEC was able to get the notification issued. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is how the Government should work. <strong>DDT</strong> congratulates the Board for being able to extend a notification before its death and that too within 15 days from the date of the recommendation of the Designated Authority. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let us hope this trend continues. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_048.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 48/2011-Customs, Dated: June 15, 2011 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Import from ASEAN Countries – Philippines Blunder Rectified by Corrigendum</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBEC</strong> deserves yet another praise. It was exactly two weeks ago that DDT pointed the blunder committed by the Board in bringing in Philippines to the ASEAN exemption notification and then forgetting to include it in the condition to the notification. Please see <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=12591" target="_blank">DDT 1622 - 03.06.2011</a></strong> - <strong>Concessional rates of duty for imports from ASEAN Countries - Philippines Added in a Complicated Notification</strong>.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There was a blunder in <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_046.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 46/2011 - Cus dated 01.06.2011</a></strong>. Now Board has issued a corrigendum to rectify the lapse. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But can a notification be amended by a corrigendum?</font></strong></p> <p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/corrigendum_11_46.htm" target="_blank">Corrigendum Dated June 10</a> to<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_046.htm" target="_blank"> Notification No. 46/2011 - Cus</a></font></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Goods received back by EOUs from DTA - What is admissible credit? </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>JUST</strong> like any other manufacturer, the goods manufactured and cleared in DTA by a 100% EOU may be rejected by the customers and it may be necessary to bring back the goods to the EOU for repair, reconditioning etc. In such cases, the EOUs can avail the facility under Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 and take the credit of duty paid on the goods received back as if they are inputs. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But it is not all that simple – at least as far as the Department is concerned. There is a restriction under Rule 3(7) of the <em>CENVAT Credit</em> Rules 2004 to the effect that the credit would be restricted to the portion of CVD and the Education Cess paid on such CVD. Many field officers are imposing this restriction even on the goods received back by the EOUs from DTA, which results in denial of credit of BCD portion. Further if the same goods are removed after some processing which amounts to manufacture, the EOU has to again pay the duties, which include BCD portion. Therefore denial of credit on BCD portion results in double levy. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Some are even going to the extent of denying total credit on the ground that the provisions of Rule 16 are not applicable to EOUs. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe the Board should intervene and demystify the doubts. </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBI arrests a private person in bribery case </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested a private person in Jaipur (Rajasthan) for demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. Seven Lakhs from the complainant who was facing a CBI trial case. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It was alleged that the accused private person had demanded illegal gratification from the complainant on behalf of an officer who was involved in investigation of the CBI trap case, the complainant was facing. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The accused was caught red handed while demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. Seven Lakh from the complainant. </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"> – Monday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a></a><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">Service Tax</font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Section 66A inserted in Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 18.4.2006 laying down that recipient of services in India from outside India shall be liable to pay tax cannot be made applicable retrospectively: CESTAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>REVENUE</strong> in their memo of appeal have sought to distinguish the Bombay High Court judgment in the case Indian Ship Owners Association vs. UOI, on the ground that in that decision the services were received outside the India, whereas in the present case, the services were received inside the India from the person having his office in India. No merit in the above distinction being made by the Revenue. Section 66-A having been inserted in the Finance Act with effect from 18.4.2006 clearly laying down that recipient of services in India from outside India shall be liable to pay tax, cannot be made applicable 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="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sec 115JB - Whether profits earned by assessee during period of sickness are to be excluded from ambit of book profit of non-sick years - NO, rules ITAT</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ASSESSEE</strong> Company is a public sector undertaking jointly owned by the AP State Govt. and the Central Govt. The company suffered losses for a number of years in the past and was declared a sick industrial company. While computing the book profits as defined in Explanation to section 115JA(2) of the IT Act 1961, the company reduced the profits earned by the company during the period of sickness. The only issue before the Tribunal is - Whether profits earned during the period of sickness are to be excluded from the ambit of book profit of non-sick years. NO is the Tribunal's answer. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Central Excise </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Appellant not giving any reason for their absence when their case was listed for hearing for fourth time: Application for restoration of appeal dismissed since devoid of merits: CESTAT</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> law makes it very clear that for seeking adjournment of hearing, sufficient cause has to be shown and even when sufficient cause is shown, the adjournment has to be given only three times and not more than that. In the instant case when the case was posted for hearing on 16.09.10, it was the fourth occasion and the appellant had already been given adjournment three times previously and, therefore, the request for further adjournment was denied. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our columns Monday for the judgements </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Monday with more <strong>DDT</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a Nice weekend. </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>