TIOL-DDT 1761 · 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 1761 </font><br>
27.12.2011 <br>
Tuesday</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CVD Exemption to Jute from Bangladesh</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>BY</strong> Notification No. 8/2011-Cus dated 14th February 2011, the following goods imported from Bangladesh are exempted from CVD.</font></p>
<table width="450" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0">
<tr bgcolor="#CCCCCC">
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Heading </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Description</font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#CCCCCC">
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5310 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Woven fabrics of jute or of other textile base fibres of heading 5303</font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#CCCCCC">
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5705 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Other carpets and other textile floor coverings, whether or not made up</font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#CCCCCC">
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6305 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sacks and bags, of a kind used for the packing of goods</font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, in addition to the above mentioned goods, the following goods are also exempted. </font></p>
<table width="450" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0">
<tr bgcolor="#CC99FF">
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5307 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yarn of jute or of other textile bast fibres of heading 5303 </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#CC99FF">
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5607 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Twine, cordage, ropes and cables, whether or not plaited or braided and whether or not impregnated, coated covered or sheathed with rubber or plastics </font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_114.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 114/2011-CUS, Dated : December 23, 2011 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Prohibition on import of milk and milk products from China - extended - Resurrection </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THIS</strong> time the resurrection is symbolically around Christmas time. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The prohibition on import of milk and milk products including chocolates and chocolate products and candies/confectionary/food preparations with milk or milk solids as an ingredient, from China, imposed vide Notification No. 67(RE-2008)/2004-2009 dated 1st December, 2008 and extended vide Notification No. 49/2009-2014 dated 24th June, 2010, for a period of one year from 24th December, 2010 and until further orders . This prohibition that expired on 23 December 2010, was extended on 3 January 2011 but with effect from December 24, 2010, by Notification No. 16/(RE - 2010)/2009-2014, Dated: January 3, 2011. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This prohibition expired on 24 December 2011. Now, the DGFT has extended it on 26 December 2011, till 24.06.2012. Of course, the gap is only two days and there could not have been any imports on those two days; but why can't the Government wake up well on time? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2010/dgft10not091.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 91/(RE – 2010)/2009-2014, Dated: December 26, 2011 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Review of Orders by Commissioners - Below monetary Limits of Appeal - Review Must -CBEC</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">AS</font></strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> is well known, Orders passed by Commissioners are reviewed by a Committee of two Chief Commissioners and orders passed by Commissioners (Appeals) are reviewed by a Committee of two Commissioners. These Committees decide whether appeals are to be filed against the orders of the Commissioners. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Recently, to reduce Government litigation, the CBEC prescribed a monetary limit of Rs. 5 Lakhs for appeals to CESTAT. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now that raises a question, whether the orders of Commissioners (Appeals) where the duty involved is less than Rs. 5 Lakhs, are to be reviewed by the Committees of Commissioners. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh suggested to the Board that in such cases, the jurisdictional Commissioner may close the file without referring the matter to the Committees. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board has examined the matter and explains, “orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are reviewed by a committee comprising of two executive Commissioners are per Section 35B(1B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 129A(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 86(1A) of the Finance Act, 1994 for satisfying itself the legality and propriety of the said orders. The monetary limit below which appeal shall not be filed by the Department has been revised by the Board for reducing the litigation. <strong>However, the statutory requirement of review can't be waived by Circular/Instruction”</strong>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, the board clarifies that the <strong>review committee comprising of the Chief Commissioners or the Commissioners, as the case may be, shall review all the orders passed by the adjudicating authority as was hitherto being done, following the statutory provisions.</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board further clarifies that in case <strong>of anti-revenue orders of CESTAT/High Court, approval of the jurisdictional Chief Commissioner is not required to be taken wherein the cases are below the threshold limit prescribed and such cases don't attract Para 3(a) & 3(b) of the Instruction dated 17.08.2011.</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2011/letter_390_2011.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC Letter in F.No 390/Misc/141/2011-JC, Dated: November 02, 2011 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Income Tax - Transfer Pricing - Prescribing a Proforma for Obtaining Information – Suggestions AGAIN Invited from Officers </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>INFORMATION</strong> on tax matters is being sought from all countries/jurisdictions with which India has Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) or Tax Information Exchange Agreement (TIEA) under the relevant 'Exchange of Information' Article of DTAA/TIEA. The above information is being obtained in a prescribed proforma. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Considering the developments at International Forums, a need to change the existing proforma was felt. Suggestions were invited for changes to the existing proforma alongwith a separate proforma for obtaining any information relating to Transfer Pricing. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Suggestions were invited on or before 15th December 2011 vide letter dated 21st November 2011. <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=13687" target="_blank">(DDT 1737 -22.11.2011)</a></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">However, the suggestions have not been received till date. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, Chief Commissioners of Income Tax and DGITs are reminded to send their suggestions on an urgent basis, as the matter is of long-term significance and involves huge revenue implications. Now, they want suggestions by 15th January 2012. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In case, the CCs and DGs have forgotten about the communication, a copy of the earlier letter dated 21st November 2011 is also sent. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://taxindiainternational.com/circularDesc.php?qwer43fcxzt=MTY0NQ==" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dept. Of Revenue (Foreign Tax & Tax Research Division) F. No. 504/31/2010-FTD-1 Dated: December 23, 2011 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Know Your Customer Norms – Letter issued by Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>RESERVE</strong> Bank of India has decided to accept the letter issued by the (UIDAI) as an officially valid document for opening of accounts. It is reiterated that while opening accounts based on Aadhaar also, NBFCs must satisfy themselves about the current address of the customer by obtaining required proof of the same as per extant instructions. </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=wnew/rbi_notification.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">RBI/2011-12/314 Dated: December 26, 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"> – Wednesday'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">Customs </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Valuation - Value of designs, drawings etc, - Settlement Commission erred in computing value - Matter remanded: HC </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THERE</strong>is no dispute that certain amount of guess work and latitude has to be given to calculate the value but the Settlement Commission has to apply its mind to reach a particular figure and give reasons why a particular method/formula is acceptable.</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 when assessee has disclosed full material facts necessary for assessment, AO can issue reassessment notice based on findings of audit party - NO, rules HC</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>NOTICE</strong> u/s 148 was issued on the ground that book profit u/s 115JB of the Act was not computed correctly and that excess deduction u/s 80HHC was allowed. The assessee approached the Court by filing Special Civil Application, which was allowed. Again the AO issued a fresh notice for the reasons recorded that the company had entered into an international transaction with associated enterprise for product registration services on which TDS was not deducted and the assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment while making computation of income. </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">No extended limitation for second Show Cause Notice on same set of facts and question – Valuation – Price to be accepted if not influenced by relationship: CESTAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>EVEN</strong> the earlier SCN was issued on the same investigation and has been held to be barred by limitation. There is no justifiable reason to attribute any suppression or mis-statement to the appellant for issuance of second SCN based upon the same set of investigation by invoking the extended period of limitation.</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><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>