TIOL-DDT 1918 · 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 1918 </font><br>
08.08.2012 <br>
Wednesday </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti-Dumping
Duty on Hexamine - Repeated Resurrection </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Anti-dumping duty on Hexamine originating in, or exported from, Russia and Saudi Arabia, was first imposed provisionally by <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2001/ctarif074.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 74/2001</a></strong> from 28th June 2001. This was valid up to 27th December 2001, but they resurrected it and made definitive anti dumping duty from 27.03.2002. This definitive duty was to expire on 27th June 2006. But by <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2006/ctariff06_065.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 65/2006-Cus.</a></strong>, Dated 27th June, 2006, the duty has been extended up to 27th June, 2007. So, the duty expired on 28th June 2007. Again, it was re-imposed for another period of five years from 25 July 2007 by <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2007/ctariff07_089.htm" target="_blank"><strong>Notification No. 89/2007</strong></a> dated 27.07.2007 </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Was there no anti-dumping and injury to domestic industry during the period 28th June 2007 to 24th July 2007 when there was no anti-dumping duty on the product? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This new Notification was valid till 24.07.2012. Obviously, the Board was busy with other important things in the last week of July 2012 that they forgot about this notification and so it actually died on 25th July 2012. But Notifications in CBEC do not die or expire - even if they do, they can be resurrected. So, they have extended the validity of Notification till 24.07.2013 - thirteen days after it expired. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What can you say about a Board that has no respect for its own instructions that definitive/final anti-dumping duty can be collected beyond the stipulated period only when a notification extending the levy has been issued, before the expiry of the parent notification? [Refer:<strong> <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=25&filename=notification/custom/2011/cuscir11_028.htm" target="_blank">Circular No. 28/2011-Cus</a></strong>, Dated: July 8, 2011] </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The new Finance Minister talks about clarity in taxation. Will he do something about this blatant resurrection of dead laws, causing confusion and fiscal damage - to the poor taxpayers? </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=337&filename=notification/custom/2012/ctariffadd12_038.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No.38/2012-Cus.(ADD), Dated: August 06, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">24X7 Customs Clearances </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBEC</strong> has decided to begin on a pilot basis 24X7 Customs clearance with <strong>effect from September 01 2012 (1.9.2012)</strong> at identified Air Cargo Complexes and Seaports in respect of following categories of imports and exports: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(a) Facilitated Bills of Entry where no examination and assessment is required; and </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(b) Factory stuffed export containers and export consignment covered by Free Shipping Bills. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This will be done in the Air Cargo Complexes at Bangalore, Chennai, Delhi and Mumbai and the Seaports of Chennai, JNPT, Kandla and Kolkata. Customs clearance facility in respect of factory stuffed export containers that is now available at specified Customs stations viz. Vishakhapatnam, Kolkata, Mundra, Okha, Sikka, Mangalore, JNPT, Mumbai, Paradeep, Gopalpur, Ennore and Chennai would continue to be operational. Besides, the normal round the clock boarding of vessels would also continue. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board is exploring the possibility of full fledged roll out of 24X7 Customs clearance for ALL import and export goods. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Where do they get the Staff?</strong> As of now, Board wants the existing staff to be deployed for this work as the self assessment procedure must have released some officers from the examination work. When the 24X7 clearance is extended to all imports and exports, Board will perhaps recruit new personnel. </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=25&filename=notification/custom/2012/cuscir12_022.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC Circular No. 22/2012 - Cus.,Dated: August 7, 2012</font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Company Law Settlement Scheme (J&K) </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IT</strong> seems that large number of companies are not filing their due statutory documents (i.e. Balance Sheets and Annual Returns) timely with the Registrar of Companies. Due to this, the records available in the electronic registry are not updated and thereby are not available to the stakeholders for inspection. Further, due to non-filing the documents on time, companies are burdened with additional fee, facing prosecutions and being debarred from filing other documents electronically. It is observed that non-compliance of the filing of Balance Sheets and Annual Returns is even more critical in the state of Jammu & Kashmir. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In order to give an opportunity to the defaulting companies in the state of Jammu & Kashmir to enable them to make their default good by filing such belated documents and to become a regular compliant in future, the Commerce Ministry, has decided to introduce a Special Scheme namely, "Company Law Settlement Scheme (Jammu & Kashmir), 2012" condoning the delay in filing documents with the Registrar, granting immunity from prosecution and charging additional fee of 25 percent of actual additional fee payable for filing belated documents under the Companies Act, 1956 and the rules. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The scheme shall come into force on the 15.08.2012 and shall remain in force up to 14.12.2012 . </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Any "defaulting company" is permitted to file belated documents, which were due for filing till 30.06.2012, in accordance with the provisions of this Scheme: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/pdfdocs/wnew/mca_circular_23_2012.pdf" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">MoC General Circular No. 23/2012., Dated: August 06, 2012</font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">No 30% HRA For Babus in Noida </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Department of Expenditure has noticed that payment of HRA @ 30% of Basic Pay is being made by certain Ministries/Departments to the Central Government employees posted at Greater Noida, in violation of the instructions issued by the Finance Ministry in this regard, from time to time. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ministry clarifies that Greater Noida was an 'Unclassified' town/place for the purpose of grant of HRA prior to 01.09.2008 and consequent upon the implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, it has been classified as ' Z' class town/place w.e.f. 01.09. 2008 vide Ministry's O.M. No. 2(13)/2008-E.II(B) dated 29. 08.2008 on grant of House Rent Allowance to the Central Government employees and classification of cities/towns for this purpose. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per this O.M, in ‘Z' Class town/place, the HRA is 10% while it is 30% in the six major cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Hyderabad and Bangalore. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It seems that the Department of Expenditure has become active overnight. Only yesterday in <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=15597" target="_blank">DDT-1917</a></strong> we reported the clarification issued by this department that the Central government employees posted at Faridabad, Gurgaon, Ghaziabad and <strong>Noida</strong> are entitled to lower Transport Allowance as these cities fall in the "other places" category. So, now it's a double whammy - lesser TA and lesser HRA! What would happen to all those payments made at the higher rates all these days? Who is responsible and how will these amounts be recovered from the officers? Quite possibly, at these mofussil areas nobody bothers about HRA and TA!. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=wnew/office_memo_hra30.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">MoF Department of Expenditure O.M No. 2(8)/2012-E.II(B)., Dated: August 06, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Who can File appeal </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AS </strong>per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, <em>"<strong>Any person aggrieved</strong> by any decision or order passed under this Act by a Central Excise Officer, lower in rank than a Commissioner of Central Excise, may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) …"</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Similarly as per Section 35B, <strong>any person aggrieved </strong>by an order of the Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeals) may appeal to the Tribunal. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, only <strong>an aggrieved person</strong> can file an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) or Tribunal.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, who is this <strong>aggrieved person</strong>? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Suppose a buyer feels that no excise duty is payable, but the manufacturer does not file an appeal to the Tribunal. In such a situation can the buyer file an appeal before the Tribunal as a <strong>person aggrieved</strong>, though he was not a party to the adjudication proceedings? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yes. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Bombay High Court in the case of <em>UshaAgarwal</em> - <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=33&filename=legal/hc/2009/2009-TIOL-329-HC-MUM-CX.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">2009-TIOL-329-HC-MUM-CX</font></a></strong>, held that the buyer is an aggrieved person and can file the appeal. </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><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">Central Excise </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can appeal of one appellant be dismissed because another appellant did not make pre-deposit? NO: HC </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ONCE</strong> the Tribunal had waived the condition of pre-deposit of penalty imposed u/r 25 of CER, 2002 on the registered dealer for the alleged supply of "invoices" without material, there cannot be an automatic dismissal of his appeal on account of non-payment of the pre-deposit of the CENVAT credit allegedly fraudulently taken by the manufacturer - Tribunal could not have reviewed its earlier order - order set aside and Tribunal directed to hear appeal on merits. </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 cash payments made to agents are deemed direct payment to milk producers as per clause (f) of Rule 6DD - Whether cash payments made to milk producers are outside provisions of Sec 40A(3) - YES: ITAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ASSESSEE</strong> is engaged in the business of purchasing milks, and after processing, selling the milk and milk products. Assessee purchased milk in cash for Rs. 23.78 crores. AO disallowed 20% of the cash payments u/s 40A(3) stating that as per the vouchers produced payments had been made to some persons who in turn had split payment to various persons. Initially it was stated that the payments were made to employees. On verification it was found that only some of the persons were employees and the balance were claimed as agents and relief under rule 6DD item-‘L' was claimed. On enquiry, it was further observed that no commission was paid and they were not the agents of the assessee company but procured milk for the sake of their own business and sold it to the assessee company. The claim that payments were made in places where banking services were not available was not acceptable as banking facilities were available in nearby centres. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Service Tax </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Appellant's claim before the lower authorities that relied upon documents be supplied were summarily dismissed - since alleged impersonator had been interacting with recipient of service and service recipients were making payment for services rendered, these documents may be needed by appellant for defending his case of non-liability of Service Tax - natural justice violated - Appeal allowed by way of remand: CESTAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>A </strong>demand of Service Tax has been confirmed along with interest and various penalties are imposed on the appellant on the ground the appellant had provided services under the category of Security Agency services and has not discharged the Service Tax liability. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Since the lower appellate authority dismissed their appeal, the security agency is before the CESTAT and the submissions are very surprising. </font></p>
<p><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not a simple case of evasion…its impersonation.</font></em></p>
<p><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements</font></strong></p>
<p><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>