TIOL-DDT 1767 · 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 align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 1767 </font><br> </strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>04.01.2012 <br> </strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Wednesday</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Amendment to Customs Tariff - Several Notifications Issued</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>YESTERDAY</strong>, <strong>DDT </strong> had reported that Customs Tariff Notifications 121 to 129 of 2011 were missing and would surface soon. And they did - three days after they were supposed to have been issued. All these Notifications are dated 30th December 2011. It is a herculean task to amend all these notifications in tune with the changes in the tariffs and the dedicated officers in the Board did a great job and completed the work on the last day. They deserve all praise - but, why did they wait till the last day to make these changes? They had all of ten months to do the job! Still Notification No. 116/2011 is missing. Anyone has a clue? </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_121.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 121/2011-Cus, Dated: December 30,2011</a>: </strong>Amends Notification Nos 28/1999-Cus, 105/99-Cus, 26/2000-Cus, 76/2003-Cus, 72/2005-Cus and 57/2009-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_122.htm">Notification No. 122/2011-Cus, Dated: December 30, 2011</a>: </strong>Amends Notification No. 151/2009-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_123.htm">Notification No. 123/2011-Cus, Dated: December 30, 2011</a>: </strong>Amends Notification No. 152/2009-Cus to align with the new tariff entries. The rates of duty are also changed. </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_124.htm">Notification No. 124/2011-Cus, Dated: December 30, 2011</a>: </strong>Amends Notification No. 69/2011-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 (came) into force with effect from 01.01.2012. </font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Concessional Customs Duty for Imports from Pakistan and Sri Lanka </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT </strong>has issued a notification for concessional duties for imports from Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Notifications 67/2006-Cus and 68/2006-Cus dated 30 th June 2006 are superseded. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_125.htm"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Notification No. 125/2011-Cus, Dated: December 30, 2011 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>1 Percent Customs Duty for Imports from Brunei Darussalam </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> has reduced the effective rate of duty for import of Crude Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals. It is now 1 percent, which was earlier 2 percent. Notification No. 116/2010-Cus dated 1 st November 2010, is amended. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_126.htm"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Notification No. 126/2011-Cus, Dated : December 30, 2011 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Imports from ASEAN Countries - Rates Reduced </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>NOTIFICATION NO</strong>. 46/2011-Cus dated 1 st June 2011 grants concessional rates of duty for imports from nine ASEAN Countries and a separate set of rates for imports from Philippines. This notification is amended and the rates are reduced. </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_127.htm">Notification No. 127/ 2010 -Cus, Dated: December 30, 2011</a> (This should actually be 2011, but the Government Notification shows it as 2010) </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>India-Malaysia - Preferential Trade - Rates of Duty </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>NOTIFICATION NO</strong>. 53/2011-Cus dated 1 st July 2011, allows concession rates of duties for imports from Malaysia under the Preferential Trade Agreement between Governments of India and Malaysia. Now, some of the rates and tariff headings are amended. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2011/ctariff11_127.htm"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Notification No. 128/2011-Cus, Dated : December 30, 2011 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Posting of Tainted Commissioner as Commissioner (Appeals) - Bad Precedent </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>YESTERDAY</strong>, the CBI confirmed that it had registered a case against a Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi and others for demanding a bribe of Rs. 60 Lakhs. And the Government has transferred the Commissioner as Commissioner (Appeals). Is a Commissioner who is not fit in the Commissionerate or who is charged with corruption, fit enough to be posted as Commissioner (Appeals)? Does the Government think that there is no scope for bribes for a Commissioner (Appeals)? Or is it because it is small money? The maximum amount involved in an appeal before a Commissioner (Appeals) is Rs. 50 Lakhs. Actually many appellants will be happy to pay a few lakhs to a Commissioner (Appeals) for a favourable order and a Commissioner (Appeals) can decide at least three cases per day. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is an insult to all the Commissioners (Appeals) that somebody who is booked by the CBI is posted as a Commissioner (Appeals). Many of the Commissioners (Appeals) are honest by choice and that may be one reason why they land up in the post of Commissioner (Appeals) and if they are clubbed with somebody who is an accused in a CBI charge sheet, it is a sad precedent. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But then, where do you post such officers? There must be some packing section where there is no interaction with the public! Even if the CBI case is false and fabricated, for some time at least, these officers should be relegated to the back offices or better still asked to stay at home. It is cheaper to pay them salaries at home than ask them to work. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In this case, it seems that the CVC had in November recommended that the Commissioner should be transferred, but nobody bothered about CVC - until CBI caught up! </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And poor Anna Hazare believes that a Super Lok Pal will end corruption! </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"> - Thursday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><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"></font><font color="#663399">Central Excise </font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Assessee engaged in activity of re-packing chemicals since 1980 and chapter note inserted only in 1997-98 - No Suppression: CESTAT </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ASSESSEE</strong> engaged in activity of re-packing chemicals since 1980 and chapter note notifying this activity as manufacture inserted only in 1997-98 - it cannot be said that they had suppressed this fact with intent to evade duty - Allegation of suppression cannot be sustained - Revenue appeal dismissed. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Income Tax </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Whether when assessee engaged in clinical trial incurs expenses on trials conducted outside in-house R&D facility, such expenditure is also eligible for weighted deduction - NO, rules ITAT </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ASSESSEE</strong> incurred expenses in respect of clinical trials, scientific information, scientific literature, analysis charges, pilot bio study expenses and consultancy charges and claimed weighted deduction u/s 35AB which allows weighted deduction for any expenditure on scientific research on in-house research and development facility as approved by the prescribed authority. The Legislature has used the term on ‘in-house research and development facility' and not ‘an in-house research and development facility' or ‘on in-house research and development' which implies that entire expenses on scientific research conducted by the in-house facility shall be held as eligible. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Service Tax </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Settled principle that taxes cannot be exported: CESTAT </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>LETTER</strong> of credit is opened by the bank only on the instructions of the customers - merely because there is no written agreement entered into by the exporter with the buyer of the goods, benefit of refund under notification 41/2007-ST cannot be denied - liberal view has to be taken while interpreting the notification so as to reduce the cost of goods exported - settled principle that taxes cannot be exported. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Tomorrow with more DDT </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 size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com"><strong>vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </strong></a></font></p> </body> </html>