TIOL-DDT 1775 · 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 1775 </font><br> </strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>16.01.2012 <br> </strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Monday </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Anti Dumping Duty on Silk Fabrics </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ANTI DUMPING DUTY</strong> on imports of Silk fabrics falling under heading 5007 originating in, or exported from, People's Republic of China, was imposed provisionally by Notification No. 52/2006 - Customs dated 31 st May 2006 and definitive anti dumping duty was imposed by Notification No. 121 /2006-Customs, dated the 26th December 2006. This would have expired on 31 st May 2011, but by Notification No. 37 /2011-Customs, dated the 21st April 2011, this was extended till 5 th December 2011. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">After this expired on 5 th December 2011, obviously somebody in Government was sleeping. Now the Government has re-imposed the duty with effect from 13.01.2012 for a period of five years. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, there was no anti dumping duty on this product from 6 th December 2011 to 12 th January 2012. Was there no dumping and injury during this period? But this time, it was the Designated Authority which was sleeping. It recommended continuation of the anti dumping duty on 5 th December 2011, the day it expired and it took the Board another five weeks to issue the Notification. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2012/ctariff12_002.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Notification No. 2/2012-CUS (ADD), Dated: January 13, 2012</strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Anti Dumping Duty on Nylon Filament Yarn </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ANTI DUMPING DUTY </strong>on imports of Nylon Filament Yarn, falling under Chapter 54 originating in, or exported from, People's Republic of China, Chinese Taipei, Malaysia, Thailand and Korea RP was imposed provisionally by Notification No. 30/2006-Cus dated 29 th March 2006 and definitive anti dumping duty was imposed by Notification No. 85 /2006-Customs, dated the 29th August 2006. This would have expired on 28 th March 2011, but by Notification No. 123 /2010-Customs, dated 9 th December 2010, this was extended till 26 th August 2011 and further extended till 28 th November 2011. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">After this expired on 28 th November 2011, obviously somebody in Government was sleeping. Now the Government has re-imposed the duty with effect from 13.01.2012 for a period of five years. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, there was no anti dumping duty on this product from 28 th November 2011 to 12 th January 2012. Was there no dumping and injury during this period? </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2012/ctariff12_003.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Notification No. 3/2012-CUS (ADD), Dated : January 13, 2012</strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Anti Dumping Duty on Phosphoric Acid </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>PROVISIONAL</strong> Anti Dumping Duty on imports of Phosphoric Acid of all grades and all concentrations (excluding Agriculture/Fertilizer Grade), falling under tariff item 28092010 originating in, or exported from, Israel and Taiwan is imposed. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This would be valid for a maximum period of six months. Of course, Government is allowed to sleep and wake up any time to impose the duty retrospectively. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2012/ctariff12_004.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Notification No. 4/2012-CUS (ADD), Dated: January 13, 2012</strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Anti Dumping Duty on Cellophane Transparent Film (CTF) </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ANTI DUMPING DUTY</strong> on imports of Cellophane Transparent Film (CTF), falling under Chapter 39 originating in, or exported from, People's Republic of China, was imposed provisionally by Notification No. 31/2006-Cus dated 30 th March 2006 and definitive anti dumping duty was imposed by Notification No. 94/2006-Customs, dated the 7th September 2006. This would have expired on 29 th March 2011, but by Notification No. 5 /2011-Customs, dated 7 th February 2011, this was extended till 30 th November 2011. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">After this expired on 30 th November 2011, nobody bothered to extend it further, but by a notification dated 30 th November 2011, the Designated Authority had recommended continuation of the anti-dumping duty. Did the DA not know that the notification was expiring on the same day? Now the Government has re-imposed the duty with effect from 13.01.2012 for a period of five years. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, there was no anti dumping duty on this product from 30 th November 2011 to 12 th January 2012. Was there no dumping and injury during this period? And who is responsible for the loss of Revenue and unwanted litigation? </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2012/ctariff12_005.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Notification No. 5/2012-CUS (ADD), Dated : January 13, 2012</strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Anti Dumping Duty on Saccharin - Sour and Sweet? </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>ANTI DUMPING DUTY</strong> on imports Saccharin, falling under Chapters 29, 30, 33 and 38 originating in, or exported from, People's Republic of China, was imposed provisionally by Notification No. 54/2006-Cus dated 06.06.2006 which was to be effective till 5th December 2006. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nobody bothered when the notification ceased to have effect from 06.12.2006. After a cool three months, definitive anti dumping duty was imposed by Notification No. 41/2007 dated 19.03.2007, of course retrospectively with effect from 06.06.2006. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">After about three years, the Government superseded Notification No. 41/2007 and re-imposed the anti dumping duty by Notification No. 136/2009 dated 09.12.2009 and this notification clearly stated that the notification would remain valid till 05.06.2011. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Government wanted to extend this anti dumping duty on saccharin for another year till 05.06.2012. So by Notification No. 62/2011 -Cus dated 19.07.2011, they amended Notification No. 41/2007, which was long ago superseded. When <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=12799" target="_blank"><strong>DDT 1656 - 21.07.2011 </strong></a>, pointed this out, the Board issued a corrigendum. So, right now, the position is the notification is valid till 5 th June 2012. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now the Government has re-imposed the duty with effect from 13.01.2012 for a period of five years. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And the much confused and tinkered Notification No. 136/2009 dated 09.12.2009, is rescinded. </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/2012/ctariff12_007.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 7/2012-CUS (ADD), Dated : January 13, 2012</a> </strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2012/ctariff12_006.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 6/2012-CUS (ADD), Dated : January 13, 2012 </a></strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Tariff Value increased for Brass Scrap and Poppy seeds </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> has increased the tariff values of Brass Scrap (all grades) from USD 3993 to USD 4007 and changed the tariff value of poppy seeds from USD 1970 to 1970. [ Actually there is no change but the Government Notification says it is amended from 1970 to 1970! ] </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is no change in the tariff value of other items. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2012/cnt12_002.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Notification No. 2/2012-CUS (N.T.), Dated : January 13, 2012 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Nepal Exports - On par with other Exports </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>PURSUANT</strong> to Revised Treaty of Trade between Government of India and Government of Nepal, exports to Nepal have been put at par with exports to other countries (except Bhutan). In this regard, five Notification Nos. 24/2011-Central Excise (N.T), 26/2011-Central Excise (N.T), 27/2011-Central Excise (N.T), 28/2011-Central Excise(N.T), and 29/2011-Central Excise(N.T), all dated 5.12.2011 have been issued to amend earlier Notification Nos 19/2004-Central Excise(N.T) dated 6.09.2004, 42/2001-Central Excise(N.T) dated 26.06.2001, 43/2001 CE(N.T) dated 26.06.2001, 44/2001-Central Excise(N.T) dated 26.06.2001 and 45/2001-Central Excise(N.T) dated 26.06.2001, respectively. Notification no. 25/2011-Central Excise (N.T) dated 5.12.2011 has rescinded the earlier Notification No. 20/2004-Central Excise (N.T) dated 6.09.2004. These amendments abolish the existing <strong>DRP </strong> for exports to Nepal and puts export to Nepal at par with exports to other countries (except Bhutan). All these notifications have been made effective from 1st March 2012. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board wants the field to inform the trade and bring any difficulties anticipated/ faced to the notice of the Board. But how many in the field will know what <strong>DRP </strong> means? </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2012/excircular958.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBEC Circular No. 958/1/2012-CX, Dated : January 13, 2012 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Single Brand Retail - FDI - 100% Permitted </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AS</strong> of now, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), in retail trade, is prohibited except in single brand product retail trading, in which FDI, up to 51% is permitted. The Government has now decided to permit FDI, up to 100%, under the government approval route, in Single-Brand Product Retail Trading. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per the Press Note released by the Government, "<em>Foreign Investment in Single Brand product retail trading is aimed at attracting investments in production and marketing, improving the availability of such goods for the consumer, encouraging increased sourcing of goods from India, and enhancing competitiveness of Indian enterprises through access to global designs, technologies and management practices</em>."</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">FDI in Single Brand product retail trading would be subject to the following conditions: </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>(a) Products to be sold should be of a 'Single Brand' only. </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(b) Products should be sold under the same brand internationally i.e. products should be sold under the same brand in one or more countries other than India. </font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(c) 'Single Brand' product-retail trading would cover only products which are branded during manufacturing. </font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(d) The foreign investor should be the owner of the brand. </font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(e) In respect of proposals involving FDI beyond <strong>51%, </strong>mandatory sourcing of at least <strong>30% </strong>of the value of products sold would have to be done from Indian 'small industries/ village and cottage industries, artisans and craftsmen'. 'Small industries' would be defined as industries, which have a total investment in plant & machinery not exceeding US $ 1.00 million. This valuation refers to the value at the time of installation, without providing for depreciation. Further, if at any point in time, this valuation is exceeded, the industry shall not qualify as a 'small industry' for this purpose. The compliance of this condition will be ensured through self-certification by the company, to be subsequently checked, by statutory auditors, from the duly certified accounts, which the company will be required to maintain. </font></em></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">RBI informs that Necessary amendments to Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident outside India) Regulations, 2000 (Notification No. FEMA 20/2000-RB dated May 3, 2000) are being notified separately. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please also see: </font></strong></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>1. <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=12823">Customs Valuation implications for Retail FDI in India </a></em></font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>2. <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=7449">Govt notifies consolidated FDI Policy; allows 51% equity in single brand retailing; puts caps in broadcasting and prohibits investment in chit fund, Nidhi and lottery business </a></strong></font></em></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://taxindiainternational.com/content.php?qwer43fcxzt=MTI5MA==" target="_blank">Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion Press Note No.1 (2012 Series) Dated: January 10, 2012</a> </strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=280&filename=notification/rbi/2011/rbi11cir067.htm" target="_blank">AP(DIR Series) Circular No. 67/RBI., Dated: January 13, 2012 </a></strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> CBEC Announces Reward Scheme for Information on Defaulters </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>A </strong>suitable reward up to 5% of the amount recovered can be given to any informer who gives information regarding the whereabouts, assets, movable and immovable properties of persons or companies from whom arrears of duty, tax, fine, penalty etc. are recoverable under the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Excise Act, 1944 or <strong>Service Tax Act, 1994 </strong>. The quantum of reward will be decided by the Chief Commissioner concerned. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Will the Board clarify where the Service Tax Act, 1994 can be found? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Chaos is an important factor in life. If one does not understand chaos, one does not understand life - </strong>Prof Yash Pal, former Secretary, Department of Science & Technology </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"> – Tuesday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" 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>Central Excise </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">MODVAT Credit - Goods used in testing customised machines, part of manufacture - inputs eligible for MODVAT Credit: Supreme Court </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>INPUTS </strong>need not be physically present in the Final Products : It is trite to state that "manufacture" takes place when the raw materials undergo a series of changes and transformation that result in the formation of a commercially distinct commodity having a different name, character and use. It is equally well settled that physical presence of an input in the final finished excisable goods is not a pre-requisite for claiming MODVAT credit under Rule 57A of the Rules. It may very well be indirectly related to manufacture and still be necessary for the completion of the manufacture of the final product. </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 acquires a running cement plant in a slump sale, if the price paid for the assets is more than book value of assets in the hands of the seller, the excess is to be attributed to goodwill </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ASSESSEE</strong> Company started its business operation w.e.f. 01/11/99, i.e., the date on which it acquired the cement business of the TISCO, as a going concern. During the current year, it acquired cement manufacturing unit of Raymonds Ltd (RL). AO rejected the valuation report on the ground that the price of the plant and machineries were artificially jacked up in the report to the level of consideration paid by appellant, the valuer had adopted the ‘Net Replacement Cost' method which was nothing but the cost of brand new individual machinery or the cement plant, and the valuation report should have been prepared much prior to the date of Business Transfer Agreement. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AP Sales Tax </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Hiring of Transit Mixers amounts to transfer of rights to use goods - liable to sales tax: High Court </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> tax is not on the delivery of the goods used, but on the transfer of the right to use goods regardless of when or whether the goods are delivered for use subject to the condition that the goods should be in existence for use; in the transaction for the transfer of the right to use goods, delivery of goods is not a condition precedent, but the delivery of goods may be one of the elements of the transaction; the effective or general control does not mean always physical control and, even if the manner, method, modalities and the time of the use of goods is decided by the lessee or the customer, it would be under the effective or general control over the goods </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">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </a></font></p> </body> </html>