TIOL-DDT 1766 · 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 1766 </font><br> 03.01.2012 <br> Tuesday </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Amendment to Customs Tariff - Several Notifications Issued</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>I</strong> asked several officers of the Customs and Excise Department whether they were aware that there was to be a major overhaul of tariff entries in the Customs and Central Excise tariffs, with effect from 01.01.2012. My sample for the survey was bad – none of the officers I spoke to, were aware of any such change and nobody had any regret. The general refrain was, “why should we bother about tariff now; it is irrelevant!” </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DDT</strong> had been reminding the Board that several notifications need amendment to be in tune with the new entries in the tariffs from 01.01.2012. On 30th December, we reminded them that that was the last day for them to do it. Yesterday they have come out with several notifications to amend several notifications to be in accord with the new-look tariffs. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_117.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 117/2011-Cus, Dated: December 29, 2011</a>:</strong> Amends Notification Nos 25/1999-Cus, 22/2007-Cus and 27/2011-Cus to align with the new tariff entries. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_118.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 118/2011-Cus, Dated: December 29, 2011</a>:</strong> Amends Notification No. 20/2006-Cus to align with the new tariff entries. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_119.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 119/2011-Cus, Dated: December 29, 2011</a>:</strong> Amends Notification No. 69/2004-Cus to align with the new tariff entries. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_120.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 120/2011-Cus, Dated: December 30, 2011</a>:</strong> Amends Notification No. 21/2002-Cus to align with the new tariff entries.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The above notifications come into force with effect from 01.01.2012. </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Iron Ore to attract 30 percent Export Duty </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>SL</strong>. No. 21 and 22 of the table to Notification No. 27/2011–Cus dated 01.03.2011, provides for a concessional rate of 20 percent export duty for Iron ore and Concentrates, other than iron ore pellets. Now these entries are deleted from the notification, which means that the export duty will be as per the Tariff, which is 30 percent. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Iron ore export swindles were in news in 2011, with a former Karnataka Minister going to jail (and is still there) and an IAS officer on bail about to go back. With this hike in export duty, iron ore export may not be competitive in the international market and hopefully Indian steel plants will be assured of more iron ore. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_129.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 129/2011-Cus, Dated: December 30, 2011 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti Dumping Duty on Polypropylene - Revoked for Saudi Arabia </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>NOTIFICATION</strong> No. 119/2010 dated 19.11.2010 imposed anti dumping duty on imports of polypropylene exported from or originating in Oman, Saudi Arabia and Singapore. Now the entries relating to Saudi Arabia are omitted.</font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_130.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 130/2011-Cus, Dated : December 30, 2011 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Amendments to Central Excise Tariff - Notifications Amended</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2011/etariff11_42.htm" target="_blank">NOTIFICATION No. 42/2011-CX, Dated: December 30, 2011</a>:</strong> Amends Notification Nos 62/1995-Cx and 20/2005-Cx to align with the new tariff entries. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2011/etariff11_43.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 43/2011-CX, Dated: December 30, 2011</a>:</font></strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Amends Notification Nos 74/1993, 09/1996, 03/2006, 04/2006, 05/2006, 02/2008, 18/2009, 01/2011 and 02/2011, all Central Excise, to align with the new tariff entries. In Notifications 01/2011 and 02/2011, certain entries are deleted and new entries are added to give effect to the migration of napkins and tampons from one heading to another. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2011/etariff11_44.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 44/2011-CX, Dated: December 30, 2011</a>:</strong> Amends Notification No. 26/2001-Cx to align with the new tariff entries. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2011/etariff11_45.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 45/2011-CX, Dated: December 30, 2011</a>:</strong> Amends Notification No. 21/2005-Cx to align with the new tariff entries. </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Central Excise - RSP - Napkins, Diapers etc, continue to get 35 percent abatement </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>NOTIFICATION</strong> No. 49/2008-Central Excise (N.T.), dated the 24th December 2008 specifies the abatement entitled for various goods falling under RSP assessment. In the list Sl. Nos 135, 136 and 137 relating to napkins diapers etc., are omitted and a new entry 144 is inserted to include napkins and diapers under tariff heading 9619 with the same 35 abatement as at present.</font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2011/exnt11_30.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 30/2011-CE (N.T), Dated: December 30, 2011</font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Manufacture of Notifications - Some Brilliance, some Baking </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> brilliant boys of the North Block come up with an average of 1.5 Notification per day and sometimes their brilliance is visible, though often their callous contempt is flaunted. Maybe while the rest of the world was on New Year revelry, these poor bright chaps were cooking up notifications, which had to meet the deadline of the New Year. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>No Quarterly Return for garments and yarn:</strong> Manufacturers of garments, yarn, fabrics are allowed to file quarterly returns within 20 days of the end of the quarter, as per the second proviso to Rule 12(1) of the Central Excise Rules. Now this proviso is deleted. These manufacturers will also now file monthly returns like others. And Notification No. 31/2011- CENT dated 30.12.2011, stipulates that "<em>The assessees referred to in the second proviso to the sub-rule (1) of rule 12 shall file return in Form ER-3 for the quarter beginning from the 1st October, 2011 and ending with the 31st December, 2011"</em>. When the second proviso is deleted, how can those covered under it be required to file the return? The brilliant babu has deleted the proviso with effect from 31st January 2012 while Notification No. 31/2011 (requirement of return) is made on 30th December 2011! - <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2011/exnt11_31.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 31/2011-CE(N.T), Dated: December 30, 2011</a> and <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2011/exnt11_32.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 32/2011-CE(N.T), Dated: December 30, 2011</a></strong> </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Customs Officers appointed as Central Excise Officers to deal with Service Tax Refunds:</strong> Netizens may recall that Government has put in place a scheme of granting Service Tax refunds for exports, through the Customs EDI. [Please see yesterday's <strong>DDT</strong>]. Now somebody may question the jurisdiction of the Customs officers to grant/reject Service Tax refunds – after all they are not Service Tax officers! To overcome this difficulty, the Board has appointed officers of Customs from Preventive Officers to Commissioners as Central Excise officers to exercise the powers in relation to Service Tax refunds. - <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2011/exnt11_33.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 33/2011-CE(N.T), Dated: December 30, 2011</a> </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Smuggle in a Correction:</strong> The Government has wisely used the exercise of amending several notification to align with the tariff changes to correct a mistake that went unnoticed for the last four years. Notification No. 25/1999-Cus dated 28.02.1999, exempts imported goods used for manufacture of excisable goods. Sl. No. 225 of List A of the notification is Palladium Tetra Amine Sulphate – <strong>2834 9019</strong>. Now, this tariff heading is patently wrong. It has now been corrected as "<strong>38249090</strong>" along with the amendments to other notifications. Usually retrospective amendments are hidden in huge budget documents. -<strong> <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_117.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 117/2011-Cus, Dated: December 29, 2011</a></strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notifications - Some Missing - Will they surface Soon? </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ACCORDING</strong> to the CBEC list, there are 130 Customs Tariff Notifications issued in 2011, but after Notification No. 120/2011 dated 30.12.2011, the next notification is Notification No. 129/2011 also dated 30.12.2011. Now God knows (and hopefully Board also knows) what happened to notifications 121 to 128! They are all apparently dated 30.12.2011, as the preceding and the succeeding notifications are dated 30.12.2011. Also, Notification No. 116 is missing. Is the Board hiding these notifications for some good reason? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We are sure these notifications are in some files and will surface soon and will all be backdated! </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">AP High Court Cancels IAS Officer's Bail </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IAS</strong> Officer Srilakshmi was arrested on 28.11.2011 and was granted bail by the CBI Court on 02.12.2011. [Please see <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=13765" target="_blank">DDT 1745 02.12.11</a></strong>] in the Obulapuram Mining Company Case (O.M.C.). The CBI took the matter to the AP High Court and the High Court cancelled her bail yesterday. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the High Court, she pleaded that <em>she was a Post-graduate with brilliant academic and service career and her husband was also an I.P.S Officer and she comes from a respectable family and there was no blemish in her service and the allegations about favouring O.M.C is not correct and she has acted bona fidely in disposing of the files put by the subordinate staff and according to her she did not sign the draft G.Os nor append her signature and therefore she being a woman and also having chronic ailment of “Prinzmental Angina” she may be released on bail.</em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court was not impressed. The High Court observed, </font></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"In this case so far as the status and position of the respondent is concerned, there cannot be any two opinions since she is an I.A.S Officer and her husband is an I.P.S Officer. She claims to be a brilliant and intellectual person and has got higher level of understanding. Having said so it is really sad and unbecoming responsibility of the Secretary to a Government to contend and plead that the orders of the Government were issued without her knowledge in her name. Evidently, the orders were issued in her name and she cannot disown the authenticity or the legality of it. Her claim that she did not initial the G.O or see the G.O is reflecting her higher degree of intelligence and being conscious of the effective omission evidently intended to benefit O.M.C, she might not have put her initials. This is real culpable criminal conspiracy. But the statement of her subordinates clearly goes to show that she has got every knowledge and G.Os were issued with her concurrence. If the Secretary of the Government is to disown the contents of order of the Government issued in her name, it is only betrayal of the duties. </font></em></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>The respondent cleverly wants to shift the blame on the subordinate staff. All this has to be mentioned by me for the reason that consideration of the bail shall be based on character of the person involved in the crime. </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is to be further noted that there is a conspiracy between the respondent and other accused and other accused were already in judicial custody and as against this respondent the investigation is not completed and if she is at large until the investigation is completed she will take all the advantages to destroy the evidence against her and others when particularly some evidence is forthcoming against the respondent. Therefore, the grant of bail will thwart the interest of justice. </font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In cases of this nature and when there is influence and power for the respondent and her husband, it will not be desirable or proper to expect the investigating agency to disclose as to what is the nature of evidence they intend to collect and further investigation to be taken up by them, when particularly the cooperation of the respondent during the course of police custody is said to be minimal. </font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the learned Judge is not legal and is liable to be set aside and since investigation against the respondent is not yet completed, it will be hazardous for the investigating agency to gather the entire evidence if the respondent is to be on bail". </font></em></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court set aside the lower court's order granting her bail and directed her to surrender before the <em><strong>concerned</strong></em> Court on or before 06-01-2012 failing which C.B.I is at liberty to arrest and produce her before the Court.</font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A New Year Wish </font></strong></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THIS</strong> was one of the New Year Messages that I got. </font></p> <p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">May your happiness increase like petrol prices. </font></strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#FF6633"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">May your sorrows fall like the Indian Rupee. </font></strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#FF6633"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">May joy fill your heart like corruption in India. </font></strong></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><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">Tribunal has inherent powers to modify stay orders under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - CESTAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ORDER</strong> of Bombay High Court in <em>Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd</em> <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=33&filename=legal/hc/2008/2008-TIOL-783-HC-MUM-CX.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">2008-TIOL-783-HC-MUM-CX</font></a></strong> and Judgment of Apex Court in <em>Benara Valves Ltd</em> - <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=32&filename=legal/sc/2006/2006-TIOL-156-SC-CX.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">2006-TIOL-156-SC-CX</font></a></strong> followed – Condition imposed in stay order modified - Pre-deposit waived and in lieu of this, applicant directed to pledge his residential bungalow worth 6.28 crores - Appellant directed to submit all original documents relating to the property to be kept in custody of Assistant Registrar, CESTAT - Failure to comply with this order or if any document is proved to be wrong/illegal, appeal liable for dismissal itself – Stay order stands modified to this extent - Order not to be quoted as a precedent.</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 imports gold for converting same into jewellery for exports purpose, such jobwork amounts to manufacture, and conversion charges earned are eligible for Sec 10A benefits - YES, rules Delhi HC </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ASSESSEE</strong> received gold supplied by ‘R' from Dubai and the same after conversion into jewellery was “exported” by the assessee to ‘R' who remained the legal owner of the gold and had not sold the gold to the assessee and no sale consideration for purchase of gold was paid. The assessee was paid conversion charges or production/manufacturing charges for converting the gold into jewellery. AO disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 10A stating that the assessee was not manufacturing ornaments/ jewellery and was not an exporter as he was paid making charges for the job work/services for making ornaments as per specification of third parties. </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">Interest on differential duty payable on price escalation - No limitation to demand interest: CESTAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">IT is now settled law that interest is payable on differential duty paid on supplementary invoices in view of the Supreme Court's order in case of<em> SKF India Ltd </em>-<strong> <font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=32&filename=legal/sc/2009/2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX.htm" target="_blank">(2009 TIOL-82-SC-CX)</a></font></strong>. In addition to the liability to pay interest, the issue in the present appeal relates to the time limit for demanding such interest. </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><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>