TIOL-DDT 196 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<html> <head> <title>Untitled Document</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 196</font><br> 07 09 2005<br> Wednesday</b></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Government amends a superseded notification</b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti-dumping duty on Oxo Alcohols originating or exported from Poland, Saudi Arabia etc., Government amends yet another dead notification – By Notification No. 80/2005-Cus., dated 5th September, 2005 the government proposes to extend the anti-dumping duty imposed under Notification No. 109/2000-Cus., dated 18th August, 2000 to 26th day of January, 2006.<br> <br> A very innocent amending notification! But the only problem is this notification 109/2000 had been superseded by Notification No. 98/2001-Cus., dated 26-09-2001.<br> <br> An anti dumping notification has a life of five years unless extended. So Notification No. 109/2000 expired on 17.8.2005. Now on 5th September 2005 – Teachers’ Day, the Government has extended the life of the Notification till next Republic Day. But can the Government extend the validity period of a notification that had already expired? If they wanted to extend the life of the notification, should they have not done this before 18th August 2005? <br> <br> But this is not a case of the Government being late by a fortnight in amending the notification. The issue is murkier. Notification No. 109/2000 had been superseded by Notification No. 98/2001-Cus., dated 26-9-2001 and the Government is not aware of its own superseded notification. And goes on merrily to amend the superseded Notification No. 109/2000!. <br> <br> If the Government does not know the status of its own notifications, who else will? This is not the first time the Government is amending a dead notification. In DDT 20 on 31.12.2004, DDT had pointed out about the Government amending another dead notification. DDT had then observed, If this is the way notifications are manufactured at the top, can you blame the field for ineptitude? Of course it is really difficult to keep track of the hundreds of live and dead notifications, especially with the kind of facilities (or the lack of them) provided to the very important sections of the department<br> <br> It is now an encore. Obviously it is proved beyond doubt that Notification making is too serious a business that can be left to the whims of the Board. Anti Dumping notifications are watched all over the world and if the Board is determined to undermine our prestige before the world by such acts of amending non existent notifications, we can only feel sorry for the Finance Minister. It takes less than half a minute to check up whether a notification is existing or not and if the great bosses in the Board do not have that half minute to spare, we will become laughing stock before the world. Board is supposed to have a master file of all the notifications with its latest status. If the Board does not have this, who else will? It is really difficult to issue and manage notifications properly, but if the Board cannot do it, should we not think of outsourcing the activity of notification manufacturing on job work? </font></p> <p align="left"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2005/ctariff05_080.htm">NOTIFICATION. No.80/2005-CUSTOMS dated 5th September, 2005</a></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Abatement - Central Excise and Service Tax </b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, abatement is given from the MRP to determine the assessable value. Similarly in Service Tax, abatement is given from gross receipts for determining the taxable value. The amount of abatement has always been a bone of contention with even the CAG finding fault with the government for allowing more abatement than what was required and the trade feeling that the abatement is too low. The Government had appointed a Committee to advise on the quantum of abatement. <br> <br> The Government has been receiving several representations but the Advisory Committee on Abatement is unable to examine and take a view on such requests in the absence of required data supporting such claims. <br> <br> In order to enable the Advisory Committee on Abatement to take a view on such requests expeditiously, the government wants that any request relating to abatement either for excise duty or service tax purposes needs to be sent along with the information in support of the claims and the supporting books of accounts. The information furnished is to represent and cover the different sections of the industry and is to be complete. In addition to other relevant information, the following information also needs to be furnished:<br> <br> • Trade practice on sale pattern and the nature of trade margins and discounts.<br> <br> • Calculation based on the actuals of different segments of the industry (small, medium and large) and of recent data. <br> <br> Obviously the Committee is going to have a long life. DDT 107 on 4th May 2005 had suggested that they should take a member from the CAG’s office and take an assurance from him that no audit objection will be raised on the abatement issue after the Committee has taken a decision<br> <br> <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2005/trucir.htm">F.NO.354/30/2005-TRU dated 6th September, 2005.</a></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <b>Will CBI Director go to Interpol?</b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The present Vice President of Interpol is an Indian – the former Director of CBI, PC Sharma. But he has resigned a year before his three year term ends in 2006. And the present CBI Director US Mishra is likely to throw his hat in the ring. The election will be held in Berlin from September 19-22. Can India retain the post it won after many years?<br> <br> But why did Sharma resign from the prestigious post? Is it because he was appointed a member of the National Human Rights Commission?</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <b>No refund please – AP CM tells Volkswagen</b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The German auto company offered to return Rs 11 crore, allegedly spirited away by the company's sacked India representative Helmuth Schuste, but Y S Rajasekhar Reddy, chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, did not buy the scheme.<br> <br> "In view of the on-going CBI inquiry into the issue, we have declined to accept the money. We are more interested in Volkswagen setting up its car plant here," Reddy said. <br> <br> So if they set up the plant, are we ready to forget the 11 Crores? <br> <br> Mrs Chidambaram has returned the fee taken from Income Tax department and we have no news whether the department has accepted her refund.<br> <br> <b><font color="#FF6666">Until tomorrow with more DDT<br> <br> Have a nice day. <br> <br> Mail your comments to</font></b> <a href="vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </a></font></p> </body> </html>