TIOL-DDT 1661 · 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 1661 </font><br>
28.07.2011 <br>
Thursday </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti Dumping Duty on Saccharin - Government Amends Non-Existing Notification - Error Rectified! </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=12799" target="_blank">DDT 1656 – 21.07.2011</a> </strong>had pointed out that the Government had amended a non-existing notification No. 41/2007, instead of amending Notification No. 136/2009 dated 09.12.2009, thereby jeopardizing the very levy of anti dumping duty. DDT also mentioned that the Notification factory in the Board needs urgent repairs . </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Government has acted pretty fast and issued a corrigendum to Notification No. 62/2011 dated 19.07.2011 to read <strong>136/2009</strong> instead of <strong>41/2007</strong>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can an Under Secretary amend a notification by issue of a corrigendum? A Notification has force of Law, is presented in Parliament and obviously issued after approval by very high-ranking authorities including the Law Ministry. Does the Corrigendum issued by an Under Secretary enjoy the same status? And if so, can they go on making corrections in the notifications any time they want by issue of corrigenda? And what is the difference between amendment and corrigendum? Is a corrigendum not a result of irresponsible exercise of delegated legislation? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board is above board! </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/corrigendum_11_62.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC F. No. F. No. 354/54/2006-TRU (Pt.II), Dated: July 25, 2011 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti Dumping Duty on Poly Vinyl Chloride Paste Resin </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>PROVISIONAL</strong> Anti Dumping Duty on Poly Vinyl Chloride Paste Resin originating in, or exported from, People's Republic of China, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Russia, Taiwan and Thailand, was imposed by Notification No. 77/2010-Customs, dated 26th July 2010. This notification clearly stated that the “<em>anti-dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be effective upto and inclusive of the 25th January 2011</em>”. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And now the Government has imposed definitive anti dumping duty on these goods with effect from the date of imposition of provisional duty, that is, the 26th July 2010. When the Notification No. 77/2010 clearly stipulated that it would end on 25th January 2011, is it fair to now retrospectively impose the duty? And what would happen to the imports from 26th January to 25th July 2011, when there was not even a provisional anti dumping duty on these goods? </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_066.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 66/2011-Cus, Dated: July 26, 2011 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">No Cess on Export of Shellac - Board Clarifies </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>REPRESENTATIONS</strong> have been received from Trade and Industry stating that they are being required to pay Cess on Lac/Shellac at the time of export of such goods. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exports of Lac/shellac were subject to Cess under ‘The Produce Cess Act, 1966'. However, vide Produce Cess Laws (Abolition) Act, 2006, the said Produce Cess Act, 1966 has been repealed w.e.f 25th September 2006. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now the Board clarifies that a Cess under this Act is no longer required to be paid on exports of Lac/shellac – six years after the repeal of the Act. </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=25&filename=notification/custom/2011/cuscir11_032.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC Circular No. 32/2011-Cus., Dated: July 26, 2011 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Allocation of quantities of non-Basmati rice for export </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT</strong> has published the list of successful allottees for allocation of 10,00,000 MTs of non-Basmati rice for exports as notified in Notification No. 60 dated 19.07.2011 along with the 1st waiting list. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The document submission, scrutiny and issue of registration certificates by the Regional Authorities of DGFT / DGFT(Head Quarters) (depending upon the choice of the allottees) would commence at 1000 Hrs on Thursday 28.07.2011 and will close at 1700 Hrs. on Thursday 18.08.2011, as mentioned in the Notification No. 60 dated 19.07.2011 subject to conditions mentioned therein. </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=329&filename=notification/dgft/2010/dgft_trade_notice_13_2011.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT Trade Notice No. 13/2011 Dated : July 27, 2011 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Life Insurance Companies in for Service Tax Shock </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Companies that insure lives may now have to run for cover as they are in for a big shock from the Service Tax department. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board has observed that the service tax liability has been largely discharged by insurance companies using CENVAT credit. Further, these companies have accumulated huge balance of <em>CENVAT credit</em>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC notes that: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Till the budget of 2011, as per Section 65(105(zx) of the Finance Act, 1994 taxable service means any service provided or to be provided to a policy holder or any person, by an insurer, including re-insurer carrying on life insurance business in relation to the risk cover to life insurance. With effect from 01.05.2011, the words "in relation to the risk cover to life insurance" stand deleted. Thus, Insurance companies providing life insurance were till 01.05.2011 required to pay service tax only in relation to the risk cover to life insurance and therefore, they could have availed CENVAT credit only to the extent of providing the said service. Whereas, these insurance companies were also providing other services relating to investment/savings, which were not chargeable to service tax and have since been charged w.e.f. 01.05.2011. Thus, these 'other services' were exempted services till 01.05.2011. Consequently, the said companies were providing taxable as well as exempted services till 01.05.2011, attracting, thereby the provisions of Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So the Board feels that<em> in case they do not maintain separate records, then as per the provisions of Rule 6 (3) these assesses should have utilised CENVAT credit to the extent of an amount not exceeding 20 % of the amount of service tax payable on the output service, upto 31,03.2008. While for the period, 1.4.2008 to 06.07.2009, the service provider was required to pay an amount equal to eight percent of the value of exempted services being provided by them, for the period 07.07.2009 to 31.03.2010, the payment was to have been made at rate of 6% and for the period 01.04.2010 onwards, the payment on the same was to be made at the rate of five percent It appears that this obligation has not been met by the service providers. On the other hand, the said companies have been availing the entire CENVAT credit on the input services being received by them and utilising the same. However full credit will be available for services specified in Rule 6 (5) ibid including in respect of sub-clause (zy) of clause 65 (105) i.e. insurance auxiliary service for the period till 31.03.2011</em>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board also does not agree with the plea that payment at the rate of 1% on the total premium implies that they have paid service tax on the 'investment' services as the method of '1% on the total premium' is used only for the purpose of quantification of the service tax that is payable on the taxable service. This method cannot bring under the tax net what was not within the ambit of Section 65 (105) (zx) till 01.05.2011. Thus CENVAT credit availed which was utilised towards provision of the exempted services stands recoverable and <strong>needs to be recovered</strong>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So the Board wants the field to: </font></p>
<div align="justify">
<blockquote>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ Verify whether tax liability has been determined @ 1 % of the gross premium or at a lesser rate in terms of only the risk portion determined based on a certificate from an actuary, without adding all the remaining overheads.
</font>
</p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ Audit/investigate expeditiously and all pending cases on the issue to be decided at the earliest. </font></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board urges the field to take urgent action to safeguard Government revenue and intimate the results to the Board. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please see a related story in <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=3661" target="_blank">DDT 353 – 02 05 2006</a></strong> </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=41&filename=notification/servicetax/2011/life_insurance.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC F. No. 354/9/2011 - TRU Dated: July 12, 2011 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Rohinton Fali Nariman is India's new Solicitor General </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/ddt1661.jpeg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="160" height="176" hspace="5" border="0" align="left"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> has appointed Rohinton Fali Nariman, Senior Advocate as Solicitor General of India. The appointment is for three years with effect from 27th July 2011. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The 55 year old Nariman, son of distinguished jurist Fali S Nariman became the youngest senior advocate at the age of 37 and has over 500 Reported Supreme Court Judgements to his credit. Apart from Law, he is interested in religion and has been ordained Zoroastrian priest. The small Parsi community has given us some of our best lawyers - Nani Palkhivala, Soli Sorabjee, Fali Nariman. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Solicitor General is the second highest Law Officer to the Government, next to the Attorney General. </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"><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">Customs </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Merely because there was a special drive to clear a backlog of matters that would afford no justification for department not to comply with fundamental principles of natural justice: HC</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>EFFICIENCY</strong> in the disposal of quasi judicial proceedings is important but, that cannot be at the cost of overriding fundamental principles known to the law of the land. </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">Whether, to avail benefit of tonnage tax scheme, it is necessary for ship to undertake voyage between international ports - NO, transportation of goods between two domestic ports is entitled to benefits: ITAT Third Member </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> assessee company is engaged in the business of shipping/port services. The company filed its return of income for the AY 2006-07 on a tonnage income of Rs. 76,85,246/-. The assessee opted for tonnage tax scheme and worked out the shipping income on tonnage basis as provided in section 115VG. The assessing authority denied the benefit of tonnage tax scheme to the assessee in respect of its operating ship “M.V.Gem of Ennore” by holding that the ship was not a qualifying ship u/s 115VD. </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">Transportation and clearance of waste is an activity connected with manufacturing business - appellants are entitled to avail CENVAT credit of service tax paid on transportation: CESTAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> appellants are engaged in the manufacture of bulk drug. The waste chemicals generated during the course of manufacturing of finished product in their factory were transported to their waste treatment plant. For clearing the waste to the treatment plant the appellant were availing transportation facility for which they were paying service tax. The service tax paid on the transportation and removal of such waste was taken by the appellant's as <em>CENVAT credit</em> but the same was denied by both the lower authorities. </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><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>