TIOL-DDT 1692 · 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 1692 </font><br>
14.09.2011 <br>
Wednesday </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sugar Syrup or Cream Used in Biscuits Exempted </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> has exempted Sugar syrup or cream used within the factory of production for manufacture of Biscuits cleared in packaged form with per kg retail sale price equivalent not exceeding Rs. 100. </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2011/etariff11_39.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 39/2011 - CE., Dated: September 12, 2011 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Central Excise - ER-1 and ER-3 Forms amended - SHE Recognised </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>TWO</strong> months ago, by Notification No. 16/2011 CENT dated 18.07.2011, Board had notified new ER-1 and ER-3 Forms. In <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=12795" target="_blank">DDT 1655 - 20.07.2011</a></strong>, we had pointed out that the Board had forgotten to mention, <em>Secondary and Higher Education Cess</em>. Now this is made good and Secondary and Higher Education Cess is included in the forms. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In ER-1, in the previous form, in Sl. No. 3, in Details of manufacture, clearance and duty payable, there were no columns for ‘opening balance' or ‘closing balance'. Now these are included. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In Sl. No. 9 - Details of other payments, a row for “TOTAL” is now included. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2011/exnt11_20.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 20/2011-CX(N.T.), Dated : September 13, 2011 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether a Committee of Commissioners should examine Commissioner (A)'s order relating to Rebate? </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>WE</strong> received this mail from a netizen - </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Commissioner (Appeals) has passed an order concerning Rebate of duty on goods exported out of India. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">‘Should such an order be examined for its legality and propriety by the COMMITTEE of Commissioners of Central Excise or ONLY by the jurisdictional Commissioner' was the question doing the rounds in our Commissionerate. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Probably, such questions might have already been answered in other Central Excise formations but at our place, because it was a novelty, discussions were the order of the day. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The first school of thought had this to say on the issue – </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ Since clause (b) of the first proviso to section 35B(1) of the CEA, 1944 makes a specific mention that no appeal shall lie to the Appellate Tribunal and that the Appellate Tribunal shall not have any jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning rebate of duty of excise on goods exported, there is no reason for reading the further provisions of section 35B, namely sub-section (2) which mentions about the Committee of Commissioners examining the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals). The fact that cannot be overlooked is that section 35B is captioned “Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal” and not “Appeals to Revisionary authority”. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ Moreover, section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 titled ‘Revision by Central Government' in sub-section (1A) makes a clear mention that the Commissioner of Central Excise may, if he is of the opinion that an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 35A is not legal or proper, direct the proper officer to make an application on his behalf to the Central Government for revision of such order. Incidentally, sub-section (1) to section 35EE identifies that the ‘order' is of the nature referred to in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 35B viz. concerning rebate of duty on goods exported. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ As such, there ought not to exist any confusion in the matter inasmuch as an order passed by the Commissioner (A) pertaining to rebate of duty is to be examined by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise and he is to decide as to whether a revision application is to be filed before the Central Government. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Another school of thought had cultivated this view – </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ Section 35EE(1A) of the CEA, 1944 laying down that the Commissioner of Central Excise is required to examine such orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and direct the proper officer to file a revision application was inserted by the Finance Act, 1999; </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ The words “Committee of Commissioners of Central Excise” substituted the words ‘Commissioner of Central Excise' in section 35B(2) of the CEA, 1944 by the Finance Act, 2005 w.e.f 13.05.2005; </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ Incidentally, section 35EE of the CEA, 1944 did not see a similar amendment/substitution of the words “Commissioner of Central Excise” by the “Committee of Commissioners” and which may be due to oversight; </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ The revision of the Commissioner (Appeals) order concerning rebate is done, if required, by the Central Government and the revisionary authority appointed by the Central Government who hears such applications is of the rank of either a Joint Secretary/Secretary or the Revenue Secretary of the Department of Revenue. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ Obviously, it cannot be that an application to the Central Government can be made by the singular application of mind by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereas for an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal it requires a Committee of Commissioners /Committee of Chief Commissioners as in section 35E(1) of the CEA, 1944. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ There is no harm if the Committee of Commissioners chooses to employ its wisdom in examining the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) even if it concerns rebate of duty. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ Needless to mention, in those cases where without noting that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerned rebate of duty and the Committee of Commissioners had passed a review order and directed the Central Excise officer to file an appeal before to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal had rejected such appeals as not maintainable, applications have been subsequently made to the Revisionary authority. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As can be seen there was no unanimity as to the recourse to be adopted in the case on hand. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seeing the commotion, the Commissioner said that there was no need to deliberate more on the subject. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">He quipped – “<strong><font color="#663399"><em>I will mark the file to the second Member of the Committee and he will sign on the dotted line and we can file a revision application. And who is going to object this – neither the party nor the Revisionary authority. After all, two heads are better than one</em></font><em></em></strong><em>.</em>” </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sage advice, we got and we followed it without any murmur! </font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DEPB to end this month - New drawback Scheme Ready </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IT </strong>is learnt that the CBEC has finalised the new Drawback Scheme, which will replace the DEPB Scheme from the beginning of the next month. The FM has reportedly accepted the proposals and may officially announce it any moment. </font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBDT vs CBEC </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> two specialised Boards under the Revenue Department – the CBEC and CBDT are expected to work with close co-operation and co-ordination for an orderly tax administration in the country. But it is a sad fact that there is hardly any communication between the Boards. Some crucial legislative changes brought in by one Board are not informed to the other Board with the result that there is an inordinate time lag between identical amendments. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of late, there seems to be visible rivalry and petty squabbles between the Boards. A pretty building named <em>Rajaswa
Bhavan</em> is coming up in Delhi to house the headquarters of Indian Revenue – both the Boards. It seems the CBEC is getting a few hundreds of square metres of more space in the new building than the CBDT. Office space is scarce in Lutyen's Delhi and every <em>babu</em> would like to have as much of it for himself. It seems CBDT has complained to Revenue headquarters that CBEC getting more space is unfair. </font></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=12663" target="_blank">DDT 1633 - 20.06.2011</a> </strong>had reported that the Customs tableau would be part of Republic Day Parade 2012. Now the CBDT has pitched in with its demand for its own tableau. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is nothing wrong in a department asking for its share, but both the Boards would immensely benefit if they put in a combined effort. It should be ‘together' instead of ‘against each other'. After all the time tested British scheme of ‘divide and rule' is always available for the administration. </font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thirty Days Bonus to Government Employees</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CENTRAL</strong> Government employees are to get a bonus of 30 days pay for 2010-11. Of course, there is a ceiling of Rs. 3500. Central Government employees in Group 'C' and 'D' and all non-gazetted employs in Group 'B' are eligible for the Bonus. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">All babus are in for another festival gift in the form of a DA hike of about 7 percent from July 2011. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=70&filename=pitara/oms/office_memorandum_bonus.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Department of Expenditure No. 7/24/2007/E III(A) , Dated: September 13 2011 </font></strong></a></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"> – Thursday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p>
<p><strong><font color="#663399" 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">Income Tax </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Revenue is under obligation to share material evidence with assessee which was basis for issue of warrant of authorisation and search & seizure: HC</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> issues before the Bench are - Whether Revenue is under obligation to share the material evidence with the assessee which was the basis for issuance of warrant of authorisation and the search and seizure; Whether a judicial precedent of the High Court of showing such confidential documents to the assessee can be said to jeopardize the future search & seizure; Whether the confidentiality of the information by itself can be a ground to claim privilege and Whether the fact that the major portion of the quantum has been decided by the ITAT against the assessee, the department can be allowed to retain the seized assets on the ground that the department does not have the power to divide the assets in proportion of the ITAT order and also that the department is filing appeal against the ITAT order for part relief granted to the assessee. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Customs </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti
Dumping on Carbon Black - D.A. has given his final findings after a detailed
investigation and due examination with regard to existence of dumping,
injury and causal link between two - No reason to interfere: CESTAT</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> D.A. has taken all pains to examine all relevant factors and has come to a finding on the strength of data made available to him, which he has separately analyzed to come to a finding on the existence of dumping, the injury to the D.I. and causality between the two. He has also kept in view that imposition of anti-dumping duties would not restrict imports from the subject countries nor it would affect the availability of the impugned product to the consumers. </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">Photography service cannot be termed as ‘Consulting Engineer service' - Service provided in Pune, demand cannot be made in Sangli: CESTAT</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> appellant is actually providing the services of photography and that cannot be termed as the services of “Consulting Engineering Services”. Moreover, the service has been provided by the respondent at Pune, therefore, it cannot be said that as the client is based in Sangli and they provided the services at Sangli and they required to get registered in Sangli as the appellant is registered at Pune and having office at Pune only. Therefore, the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Sangli has no jurisdiction </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">Principle of limitation for demanding principal amount also applicable for recovery of interest: CESTAT</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Apex Court in SKF India Ltd did not consider the aspect of limitation while holding that interest was liable to be paid on differential duty in supplementary invoices. In view of this, the impugned order demanding interest beyond the limitation period was set aside and appeal of the appellant allowed. </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 color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></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>