TIOL-DDT 1932 · 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 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></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 1932</font><br>
31.08.2012<br>
Friday</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Fertilizing confusion - Board clarifies</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IN</strong> the Budget 2012, effective rates of Customs duties for fertilizers are provided under the Customs Notification No 12/2012 Dt.17.03.2012. The relevant entry, Sl No. 200 in the Notification read as under: </font></p>
<table border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tr valign="top">
<td><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">S. No. </font></p></td>
<td><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Chapter or Heading or sub-heading or tariff item </font></p></td>
<td><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Description of goods</font></p></td>
<td><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Standard rate</font></p></td>
<td><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Additional duty rate </font></p></td>
<td><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Condition No </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">200 </font></p></td>
<td><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">31</font></p></td>
<td><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Composite Fertilisers </font></p></td>
<td><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5% </font></p></td>
<td><p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- </font></p></td>
<td><p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">- </font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Further, the concessional rate of CVD @1%, hitherto available for <strong>imported fertilizers</strong> vide Customs Notification No 35/2011 does not exist as the same has been rescinded in the Budget 2012. Thus, imported fertilizers attracted CVD @ 6%(in view of the effective rate of 1% under Central Excise Notification No 12/2012 is with the condition of non-availment of <em>CENVAT Credit</em> which cannot be extended to the imported goods). </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">However, vide Corrigendum Dt.19.03.2012, the entry at Sl.No 200 is corrected <strong>as under:</strong> </font></p>
<table width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tr valign="top">
<td><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">S. No.</font></td>
<td><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Chapter or Heading or sub-heading or tariff item</font></td>
<td><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Description of goods </font></td>
<td><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Standard rate </font></td>
<td><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Additional duty rate </font></td>
<td><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Condition No </font></td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">200</font></td>
<td><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">31 </font></td>
<td><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) Composite Fertilisers </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) All goods, other than those which are clearly not to be used as fertilisers </font></p></td>
<td><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5% </font></p>
<p> </p>
<p>-</p></td>
<td><p>-</p>
<p> </p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1% </font></p></td>
<td><p>-</p>
<p> </p>
<p>-</p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">However, it appears that the above corrigendum did not solve the problem fully as many other entries (Sl No 197,198,199,201,202,203,204 and 205) still carried "-" (dash) in CVD column which means they will be charged CVD of 6% instead of 1%. To avoid this, another Notification No 46/2012 Cus dated 17th August has been issued to substitute "-" against these entries with 1%. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If someone wants to claim the exemption of BCD at 5% under one Sl No and CVD at 1% under 200(ii), there is a possibility of denying the same as this would amount to availing the benefit of two entries in the Notification simultaneously. Board clarifies this is permissible and the substitution of 1% vide Notification 46/2012 Cus is only for bringing more clarity (which means, even without 46/2012 Cus, 1% benefit is admissible) </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hence,CBEC has now clarified that a "Combined reading of the entries" is permissible and explains the amendment made vide Notification No 46/2012 Cus. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">All fine, except the last line of the Circular, which reads: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The above position may be brought to the notice of formations under your charge, for strict compliance, especially in respect of assessments for the period prior to 17th August, 2012 . </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, how does the Board want the assessments for the period prior to 17th August 2012 be made? CVD at 1% or 6%? Why should such an important issue be limited to a vague one-liner? Can't they be more specific? If they are to be assessed at 6%, whose fault is it? Why can't they be bold enough to say, this has happened due to a defective notification, which was corrected with effect from 17 August 2012 and the Government always wanted to levy CVD at 1% only and a Notification under Section 28A is underway for the period prior to 17th August 2012? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Circular issued by the learned Joint Secretary, TRU, states, <em>"Even though it is true that for many S. Nos. of notification no. 12/2012-Customs pertaining to goods falling under Chapter 31(S. Nos <strong>196 to 199 and 200 to 205</strong>) the entry indicated in column (5) is ‘-‘ …………" </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">196 to 199 and 200 to 205? Is it not the same as saying 196 to 205? The fact is in Sl. No. 200 (at least part of it), the entry under Column 5 is not ‘-‘. </font></p>
<p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please also see <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=15682" target="_parent">DDT 1924 - 21.08.2012</a></font></strong></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=25&filename=notification/custom/2012/cuscir12_023.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Circular No. 23/2012-Cus., Dated: August 30, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti dumping duty on Metronidazole - re imposed</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Anti dumping duty on Metronidazole originating in, or exported from, the Peoples' Republic of China was imposed by Notification No. 115/2000-Customs, dated the 31st August 2000. This would have expired on 30th August 2005. On the recommendations of the Designated Authority, after a sun set review, the duty was extended till 15-04-2006. So obviously the duty expired on 15.4.2006 but the duty was again imposed with effect from 15th June 2006 vide Notification No. 61/2006 dated 15.06.2006.What happened during the period from 15.4.2006 to 14.6.2006? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">History repeats!</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The anti dumping duty imposed by Notification No. 61/2006 expired on 14.06.2011 and this was extended till 14.06.2012 by Notification No. 48/2011 dated 15.06.2011. So, this definitely expired on 14.06.2012. Now they have again imposed it with effect from 30.08.2012. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Was there no dumping between 15.06.2012 and 29.08.2012? Of course, in this case, the Designated Authority recommended extension of the anti dumping duty only on 29th June 2012 and it took the Board two more months to issue the notification! </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=337&filename=notification/custom/2012/ctariffadd12_040.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 40/2012- Cus (ADD) , Dated: August 30, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Service Tax - Reverse Charge Mechanism - Needs Clarifications -FIEO </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Mr. M RAFEEQUE AHMED</strong>, President, Federation of Indian Export Organisations (FIEO) in a Press Release states that the onus of payment in some categories has been divided between service receiver and service provider for e.g. a work contract involves 50:50 liability or provider & receiver & 25:75 in the case of manpower supply and as a result those MSME's who are not registered with excise authorities need to register themselves adding to paperwork /costs. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">FIEO chief explained that the cut-off date for applicability of RCM also needs clarification. While the tax department in a circular dated July 6 clarified that the "provisions of partial RCM would also be applicable in respect of such services where point of taxation is on or after July 1, 2012 under the applicable rule in respect of the service provider", Rule 4 of the Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 states that the service recipient is liable to pay service tax if the payment was received and the invoice issued after July 1 this year even if the services were rendered before that date. Also, for services rendered and payment received after July 1, even if the invoice is dated prior to July 1, the service tax liability would fall on the recipient. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Further, President FIEO elaborated that while point of taxation for the service provider is based on the date of invoice if issued before receipt of payment for the service recipient, the liability is always on payment of the value of the service. However, if there is no payment within six months, the due date for the recipient shall be reckoned as the date of invoice, as it applies to the service provider. This could lead to an interest exposure in the hands of the service recipient if the payment for services is not made within six months. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Besides clarifications on cut-off date for applicability of RCM need to be given, even for services brought into the tax net from July 1 and notified for RCM, Rule 5 of the POTR would be applicable and service tax would be liable on services rendered prior to July 1, if the invoice is dated post-July 1 and was raised 14 days after the completion of service, the recipient is liable to pay service tax. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Will the Board help? </font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Current Economic Situation and Policy Options - Standing Committee Report </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>YESTERDAY</strong>, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance presented to Lok Sabha its 59th Report on the " Current Economic Situation and Policy Options ". The Committee studied several aspects of the economy and suggested solutions. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Some of the issues and recommendations: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Current state of the Indian Economy: </strong>The Committee are extremely concerned over the current gloom and doom scenario in the domestic economy and find almost all macroeconomic indicators disturbing during the financial year 2011-12. <em>The Committee, urge upon the Government to take clear-cut measures in this direction and implement them speedily and without fail.</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GDP growth:</strong> The Committee find that the GDP growth has decelerated over successive quarters from 9.2 per cent in Q4 of 2010-11 to 5.3 per cent in Q4 of 2011-12, bringing down the overall growth for the last fiscal to 6.5 per cent.<em> The Committee, therefore, urge upon the Government to re-orient its efforts for better and more balanced reforms for achieving sustainable growth. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Inclusive development:</strong> In the context of economic growth and per capita income, the Committee are concerned to note the emerging ever widening gap between the rich and poor and the increasingly disproportionate distribution of assets in our country. <em>The Committee would urge upon the Government to focus their energies and prioritise their expenditure on goals of inclusive development, namely in the areas of healthcare, education and shelter. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Savings and Investment:</strong> The Committee understand that savings and investment are the two critical macroeconomic variables with microeconomic foundations for achieving sustainable economic growth. They, therefore, are deeply concerned about the marked decline in domestic savings, domestic investments and demand in our economy. <em>To achieve and sustain growth at high levels, the Government and RBI should take concerted efforts to increase domestic savings and investments through calibrated adjustments in policies. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Agriculture Sector:</strong> The Committee observe that the share of agricultural sector in the GDP has declined considerably over the last 60 years, from 53.1 per cent in 1950-51 to 13.9 per cent (Advance Estimates) in 2011-12. <em>The Committee urge upon the Government to make larger public investment in the sector and infuse funds especially for post-harvest technologies, infrastructure support, massive programmes for extensive irrigations facilities and ensure enhanced yet cheap credit to the farmers so as to achieve the targeted 4 per cent average growth in agriculture. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Industry and Manufacturing:</strong> The Committee are disappointed to see the fall in industrial growth from 8.4 per cent in 2009-10 and 7.2 per cent in 2010-11 to 3.4 per cent in 2011-12, which has been the main reason for the fall in overall GDP growth in 2011-12. <em>The Committee desire the Government to chalk out an action plan to create a positive investment climate, address supply-side constraints, provide incentives for capacity addition, rationalize interest rates on credit, step up the performance of the energy and transport sectors, bring down time and cost overruns in major infrastructure projects and create job opportunities by imparting skills to citizens. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Credit to productive sectors:</strong> The Committee note that the RBI's recent Statutory Liquidity Ratio (SLR) reduction from 24 per cent to 23 per cent of Net Demand and Time Liabilities (NDTL) with effect from August 11, 2012 is done to give banks a cushion to extend more credit to private sector than investing in Government securities. This reduction in SLR is expected to infuse around Rs.68,000 Crore in to the market which may encourage flow of credit to productive sectors of the economy. <em>The Committee desire that the RBI should strengthen the mechanism to protect the financial health of the banking sector.</em> </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Services sector:</strong> The Committee are extremely disturbed to note that even the services sector which has been the vital force steadily driving the Indian economy for over a decade too has shown signs of moderation. In 2011-12 there has been a dip in the growth of services to 8.9 per cent from 9.3 per cent in 2010-11 and 10.5 per cent in 2009-10 though the advanced estimates expected it to realize a growth rate of 9.4 per cent in 2011-12. <em>The Committee recommend that a study group be constituted to identify the maladies in the sector and action be taken on priority basis to cure them.</em> </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Exports and Imports:</strong> The Committee note that exports have recorded a growth of 23.6 per cent during 2011-12 as compared to 37.5 per cent in 2010-11. Our imports too have registered a growth of 31.1 per cent from 26.7 per cent during the same period. <em>The Government should explore options like promoting austerity in oil consumption, maintaining a strategic storage pool of oil to offset the price fluctuations of crude in the international market, alternatives like electric and hybrid vehicles, etc. and discourage the import of gold and silver. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>FDIs and FIIs:</strong> From the submissions of the Chief Economic Advisor, the Committee understand that the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) gross inflows to our country in 2011-12 was an all time high at USD 46.8 billion as against USD 29.4 billion in 2010-11. Net FDI inflows of USD 22.1 billion and NRIs deposits at USD 11.9 billion were also higher in 2011-12 vis-a-vis USD 9.4 billion and USD 3.2 billion respectively in 2010-11. <em>The Committee, therefore, recommend that the FDI policy may be reviewed by the Government to make India an increasingly attractive and investor friendly destination for foreign investors.</em> </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Fiscal Deficit:</strong> The fiscal deficit, which is estimated to be 5.9 per cent of GDP in 2011-12 as against a target of 4.6 per cent, is at an uncomfortable level and has become an issue of great concern. The Committee find that at the end of June 2012, fiscal deficit has touched 37.1 per cent of the budgeted amount as the Government struggled to curtail expenditure. According to the data released by the Controller General of Accounts, the shortfall between expenditure and revenue stood at Rs.1.9 trillion. <em>Rationalize and monitor capital and revenue expenditures including subsidies; review the method of calculating notional under recoveries of oil companies on the basis of import parity pricing mechanism for petroleum products than on actual refinery costs; enhance gross revenue collection by plugging loopholes in the tax system to reduce tax avoidance, recovery of tax arrears and phasing out of tax exemptions/incentives for Corporates; optimise available resources and above all improve the quality of public expenditure.</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Current Account Deficit:</strong> The Committee are also gravely concerned about the unsustainable Current Account Deficit (CAD) that has become a serious threat to the macroeconomic stability. In 2011-12, the country has reported an all time high CAD both in absolute terms as well as proportion to GDP at USD 78.2 billion (4.2 per cent of GDP) vis-à-vis USD 45.9 billion forming 2.7 percent of GDP in 2010-11. <em>In this context, the Committee strongly feel that concerted efforts should be made by the Government to bring down the import of POL, discourage unproductive imports like gold and silver and boost competitive domestic production. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Dissent: </strong>In a dissent note, Mr.Gurudas Dasgupta stated, "<strong><em>The report is stereotyped, does not search for alternative policy which the nation is looking for</em></strong>." </font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DDT Cartoon </font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/ddt_1910.jpg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="400" height="452" hspace="5" border="0" align="center"></font></strong></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"> - Monday'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">Income Tax</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether an assessee is free to exercise his commercial wisdom to sell loss-making shares at any given point of time, even though this may amount to reduction of his tax liability - YES: 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 shares pledged with a bank, can be validly transferred within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, even though the mandatory requirements of registering such transfer u/s 108 of the Companies Act, may not be fulfilled; Whether capital loss arising on sale of such shares can be claimed, when such transfer of shares may be challenged by the bank, on the grounds of breach of contract; Whether in such a case, the transfer could be considered as a paper arrangement, merely because loss making shares were sold to a group company; Whether there are any restrictions in the Income Tax Act on sale of loss making shares and Whether an assessee is free to exercise his commercial wisdom to sell loss making shares at any given point of time, even though this may amount to reduction of his tax liability. And the verdict goes against the Revenue. </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">All claims for refund have to be preferred and adjudicated under provisions of respective enactment - claim clearly time barred in terms of s.11B of CEA, 1944 - Revenue appeal allowed: CESTAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> assessee manufactures and exports telecommunication products. They entered into an agency commission agreement with their foreign principal. In terms of this agreement, they carried out marketing efforts to find Indian customers for the products manufactured by the principal. In return, they were paid agency commission at specified percentage for the said services in the convertible foreign exchange, which they realized through normal banking channel. Since assessee was under bona fide belief that the said marketing services amounted to Business Auxiliary Services in terms of Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with 65(105) (zzb) of the Finance Act, they paid Service Tax at appropriate rates and in case of delayed payment of said tax they also paid penal interest. </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">Supply of paint and thinner to Indian Navy by claiming exemption notification <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=29&filename=notification/excise/post2000/etariff95_064.htm">64/95-CE </a>on basis of certificate issued by Commandant, Warship Production for construction of naval vessels and not for consumption as stores - benefit not available: CESTAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AS</strong> the revenue was aware that goods in question have been cleared to M/s Mazgaon Dock Ltd. by claiming the benefit of notification. Hence, the allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty is not sustainable in the present case. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oxygen plant set up in factory by M/s Inox Air Products and leased out to assessee - CENVAT credit availed on capital goods used in fabrication of ‘plant' - Pre-deposit of Rs.4.85 Crores waived and stay granted: CESTAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>REVENUE</strong> relies on the findings of the lower authority and submitted that as no duty has been paid on the Plant as the Plant is not excisable and credit in respect of the inputs used in the fabrication of the Plant is not admissible. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our columns Monday for the judgements </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Monday with more <strong>DDT</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a Nice Weekend. </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>