TIOL-DDT 1894 · 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 size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=14276"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/ddt/ddt_1794.jpg" alt="DDT in Limca Book of Records" width="175" height="120" hspace="5" border="0" align="right"></a></font></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 1894 </font><br>
05.07.2012 <br>
THURSDAY </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC
Proposes Changes in CESTAT Appeal Forms </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBEC</strong> proposes to amend the existing forms EA3, EA4, EA5, CA3,CA4,CA5, ST5,ST6 and ST7 meant for filing appeals to the Tribunal. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the new forms, appellants would be allowed to cite three case laws on which they propose to rely. (Other case laws could be indicated in the main appeal) </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A box is proposed to be inserted in the forms in which the appellants would select from a list of pre-determined issues involved in the dispute. This is expected to help in bunching and quick disposal of cases involving identical issues. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is also proposed to make provision for a common alpha-numeric number to all the Orders in Original and Orders in Appeal which would help in linking related and contra appeals. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why can't they allow e-filing of appeals. E-mails should be allowed for intimations and adjournments. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Revenue Department should provide more facilities in CESTAT. Even the Court Rooms need major changes. There should be a horse-shoe type of table for the counsels. The Tribunal should also consider issue of soft copies of its orders. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Coming back to the new forms, if you have any suggestions/inputs that need to be incorporated in the forms so as to make them more useful, they may be sent to <a href="mailto:dirjc-cbec@nic.in" target="_blank"><strong>dirjc-cbec@nic.in</strong> </a> by <strong>20.7.2012</strong>. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/pdfdocs/wnew/CE_forms.pdf" target="_blank"><strong>Annexure 1</strong></a>: Proposed EA 3, EA 4 and EA 5 forms</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/pdfdocs/wnew/CS_forms.pdf" target="_blank"><strong>Annexure 2</strong></a>: Proposed CA 3, CA 4 and CA 5 forms</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/pdfdocs/wnew/ST_forms.pdf" target="_blank"><strong>Annexure 3</strong></a>: Proposed ST 5, ST 6 and ST 7 forms</font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti Dumping Duty on Soda Ash </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> has imposed anti dumping duty on the import of Soda Ash falling under sub-heading 283620 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, originating in, or exported from, People's Republic of China, European Union, Kenya, Iran, Pakistan, Ukraine and United States of America </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This anti dumping duty shall be effective for a period of five years. </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=337&filename=notification/custom/2012/ctariffadd12_034.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 34/2012-Cus., (ADD), Dated: July 3, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">No Minimum Export Price for Basmati Rice </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> has deleted the entry at Point (ii) in the “Nature of Restriction” column [Column No. 6 of the table] against Sl. No. 57 in Chapter 10 of Schedule 2 of ITC(HS) Classification of Export and Import Items relating to Basmati rice. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, Basmati Rice can be exported without any Minimum Export Price (MEP). </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=45&filename=notification/dgft/2012/dgft12not006.htm" target="_blank">DGFT Notification No. 6 (RE-2012) /2009-2014 , Dated: July 4, 2012 </a></font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">New Income Tax Forms </font></strong></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBDT</strong> has amended Forms ITR-5 and ITR-6. </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=35&filename=notification/cbdt/2012/it12not025.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 25/2012, Dated: July 2, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CESTAT Member Sends Notice to ELT Editor </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IT</strong> is learnt that Member (Judicial) PG Chacko of the Bangalore Bench of the CESTAT has sent a legal notice to Excise Law Times Editor RK Jain. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ELT in its 18th June 2012 Edition had carried a news item adding to a report in the Times of India that in an investigation DRI had found that bribes were paid to politicians, bureaucrats and Tribunal Members. The report states, "<em>In the seized records, two entries are learnt to have been found regarding alleged payment of bribes of Rs. 30 Lakhs and Rs. 11 Lakhs respectively for seeking favourable orders on stay applications from CESTAT, Mumbai. It is learnt that as per DRI report in both the cases the orders were passed by the CESTAT Bench of Shri. PG Chacko and Shri K.K. Aggarwal. As per sources, the DRI has already recorded the statement of certain crucial witnesses under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 detailing the manner of payment of bribe money and the hands involved in it." </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Perhaps, it is this part of the report which has offended the CESTAT Member which resulted in notice to the Editor seeking unconditional apology and prominent publication of it in ELT, failing which he proposes to initiate legal action. </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"> - Friday'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">Service Tax</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Repairs and Maintenance Service – Service tax not payable for service provided to immovable property under category of Repairs and Maintenance Service during period prior to 10.09.2004 – No merit in appeal filed by the Revenue – CESTAT. </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">THE Respondent (M/s GE Nuova Pignone), a corporation governed by the laws of Italy has been providing the maintenance and repair services to their customers including supply of spare parts required. The respondent had obtained Service Tax Registration under the category of 'Maintenance or Repair Services' and paying service tax in respect of the maintenance fees after deducting the value of spare parts supplied in terms of <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=40&filename=notification/servicetax/2003/sernot03_12.htm"><strong>Notification No. 12/2003-ST</strong> </a>dated 20.6.2003, which grants exemption from service tax on so much of the value of taxable services as is equal to the value of the goods and materials sold by the service provider to the recipient of service. Revenue took a view that respondent was not eligible for exemption <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=40&filename=notification/servicetax/2003/sernot03_12.htm"><strong>Notification No. 12/2003-ST</strong></a> dated 20.6.2003.</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 expenditures incurred in connection with Euro issue also qualify for amortisation u/s 35D - YES: Madras 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 in the context of industrial undertaking, the I-T Act does not assign any specific meaning to the word ''extension''; Whether the expression ''extension'' means both horizontal as well as vertical extension; Whether the word 'being' used in Sec 35D is restrictive in nature and Whether expenditures incurred in connection with Euro issue also qualify for amortisation u/s 35D. And the verdict goes in favour of 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">Order passed by Commissioner of Customs (A), Mumbai-II first reviewed by Commissioner (Imports) and then by Committee of Commissioner (General) and Commissioner (Imports) - Neither of them have jurisdiction in matter - Revenue appeal dismissed by CESTAT as not maintainable - fresh appeal filed along with application for condoning delay of 697 days - while dismissing earlier appeal, Tribunal has not given liberty to appellant to take remedial steps - COD, appeal and stay application dismissed: CESTAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THIS </strong>is an interesting case where the Revenue got it all wrong. In its hurriedness to file an appeal against an order of the lower appellate authority, they first got the order reviewed by the jurisdictional Commissioner forgetting that such orders are to be reviewed by a Committee of Commissioners. So it did just that. Unfortunately the Committee that signed the review order was not the one that was legally constituted in terms of the Notification issued by the Central Government u/s 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. The end result of this fiasco was that the appeal was dismissed by the CESTAT. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">One would have hoped that the matter was dead. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But, nothing dies at the hands of the Revenue. They make an attempt to resurrect anything and everything! Surprisingly, against the very same Order-in-Appeal, the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva, after being dressed down by the CESTAT, filed a fresh appeal along with application for stay and application for condonation of delay. </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>
<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>
</body>
</html>