TIOL-DDT 1960 · 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 1960</font><br> 11.10.2012<br> Thursday</strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CAT Warrant against Former Revenue Secretary Stayed by High Court</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THOUGH</strong> Mr. RS Gujral is no more the Revenue Secretary, he is facing contempt charge in Supreme Court and a CAT Bench. The Mumbai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal recently issued a bailable warrant against Gujral to secure his presence in the Tribunal in a case filed by a 79 year old former Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise who believes that he should have got a promotion while in service. In spite of a favourable order from CAT, his deemed promotion did not come and he filed a contempt petition in which the CAT asked the former Revenue Secretary (who is the present expenditure and Finance Secretary) Gujral to appear in person on October 3rd. When he failed to attend the Tribunal on that day, the CAT issued a warrant against him. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yesterday, the Bombay High Court stayed the warrant. In the meantime, the Government considered the request of the former Deputy Commissioner of Customs and rejected his request, as he was held not eligible for the promotion. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is how Government deals with litigation - litigation against Government is best avoided. </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti Dumping Duty on Melamine </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> has imposed anti dumping duty on Melamine falling under Chapter 29 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, originating in, or exported from, European Union, Iran, Indonesia and Japan with effect from 8-10-2012. This will be levied for a period of five years unless revoked, amended or superseded earlier. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=337&filename=notification/custom/2012/ctariffadd12_048.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No.48/2012-Customs (ADD), Dated: October 8, 2012. </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exchange Rates - Corrigendum </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>BY </strong>Notification No. 93/2012-Cus(NT) dated 09-10-2012, CBEC had notified the Exchange rate for South African Rand as 6.10 for imported goods and <strong>6.05 (i.e. no change)</strong> for Export Goods. Now they have issued a corrigendum, which stipulates that we should read <strong>6.05 (i.e. no change) </strong>as<strong> 5.75</strong>.</font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2012/cnt12_093.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Corrigendum to Notification No.93/2012 in F. No. 468/16/2012-Cus.V Dated: October 10, 2012 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Assignment of SCNs - Common Adjudicating Authority </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>Central Board of Excise & Customs has issued an order assigning 16 show cause notices issued to M/s Nitco Ltd., Worli to be adjudicated by Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Mumbai Zone-I. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2012/order437_2012.htm"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Order dated 9th October, 2012 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Introduction of Electronic Bank Realization Certificate (e-BRC) system - DGFT Guidelines </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ISSUANCE</strong> of physical copy of BRCs by banks for the purpose of DGFT was dispensed with and e-BRC was made mandatory with effect from 17-8-2012. DGFT has issued Guidelines for Banks, Exporters and RAs. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Banks: </font></strong></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Issuance of physical copy of BRCs by banks has been dispensed with for the purpose of DGFT use. Banks will, now, transmit BRC data electronically to DGFT server. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Banks will convert BRC issued manually during 01.04.2012 and 16.08.2012 in the digital (XML) format and upload these onto the DGFT server. This will ensure availability of complete BRC data in electronic form for the entire financial year. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. BRCs transmitted by bank should reflect total value of foreign exchange realised. Banks should not deduct any amount from this value under any head (Commission, Insurance and Freight). </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exporters: </font></strong></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Exporters should verify the Shipping Bill Number, Date and Port Code in case of ‘e-BRC' as reported by banks. In case of discrepancy, exporters need to approach bank to get such ‘e-BRC' details corrected first and then link the same with Shipping Bills. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. In case the need for modification is felt, exporters have the option to delete Shipping Bills and/or ‘e-BRC' data from the Application and/or Repository. However, once the Shipping Bill/ BRC is utilized in any of the schemes, no modifications are permitted. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. ‘e-BRC' details available in the DGFT server do not contain values of Commission, Insurance and Freight. These are to be entered by the exporters while making applications under various DGFT schemes. Exporters must ensure that the ‘e-BRC' value reported by bank reflects full value and get it corrected from the banks in case of any discrepancy. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. Exporter will enter values of Commission, Insurance and Freight against each BRC. Without this entry, net FOB Value displayed will be indicated as zero. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. Exporter will have to furnish a declaration of correctness of the data and also furnish relevant documents, if called for. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6. In case of shortfall in foreign exchange realization with respect to the shipping bill FOB value, pro rata distribution of realized foreign exchange against each export item will be made by the system itself. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">7. DGFT will maintain a Repository of Shipping Bills, which would be available for on-line linkage with any application, for example, DEPB, Chapter 3 Incentive Schemes and EODC. When requested by exporters, ‘e-Shipping Bill' and ‘e-BRC' data will be captured and linked automatically. </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">RAs: </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">RAs will not ask for physical copies of BRCs for BRCs issued with effect from 17.08.2012. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=46&filename=notification/dgft/2012/dgft12cir006.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT Policy Circular No. 06/(RE- 2012) /2009-14, Dated: October 10, 2012 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Trade Notices or Facilitation </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>SOMETIME</strong> back, we carried an article titled "<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=15975"><strong>CENVAT Credit - Unreasonable burden cast by a Trade Notice</strong></a>" in our ST se GST tak column by one of our regular contributors. Also please see <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=15976" target="_blank">DDT-1952</a></strong>.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The highlight of the referred Trade Notice No. 10/2012 dated 13th July, 2012 issued by the Chandigarh-I Commissionerate is that it advises the trade to take reasonable steps to ensure that Service Tax has been paid by the input service provider before final manufacturer/service provider utilizes the CENVAT Credit. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On our<strong> <a href="http://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside3.php3?filename=message2.php3&threadid=7487&forumid=1" target="_blank">message board</a></strong>, comments have been posted by the Joint Commissioner, C.Ex., Chandigarh-I Commissionerate justifying the issuance of the Trade notice.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We intend to steer clear of any controversy and not take sides with either the author of the article or the comments on the message board but refer to the Board <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=25&filename=notification/custom/2004/cuscir04_049.htm"><strong>Circular No. 49/Cus/04 dated 2nd September, 2004</strong> </a>on the subject "Guidelines relating to issue of Trade Notices / Public Notices" and which makes interesting reading. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether the Commissionerate is well within its right in issuing such an "advice" to the public is for the Board to decide. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Only time will tell.</font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Vacate those Government Quarters - SC </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>A</strong> former Governor of Bihar, a former Delhi Police Chief, a senior CAG Official, a Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - there is one thing common among all these great men - they all occupy prime Bungalows in Lutyens' Delhi - unauthorisedly - denying accommodation to those who require and deserve it. It is understood that the Supreme Court yesterday issued notice to all these illegal occupants. </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">Commissioner (A) forgetting basic principles while deciding stay application - ordering for pre-deposit on the premise that applicant had not pleaded any financial hardship and then dismissing their appeal for failure to comply with his order citing provisions of s.35F of CEA, 1944 r/w s.83 of FA, 1994 is not proper in eyes of law - Matter remanded: CESTAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> appellant had challenged the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority on the ground that they had obtained a centralized registration but the lower appellate authority decided the stay application on the premise that the appellant had not pleaded any financial hardship by ordering a pre-deposit of the entire dues confirmed. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As the pre-deposit order was not complied with, the Commissioner (A) dismissed their appeal citing the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 and, therefore, the appellant is before the CESTAT. </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 compensation paid for 'Right of Way' to Government agencies which owned land, for laying gas pipelines can be capitalized in cost of pipelines - YES: ITAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong> issues before the Bench are - Whether reopening of assessment is based on a "change of opinion", even when the AO has not specifically applied his mind during the original assessment proceedings on the depreciation claimed by the assessee; Whether the mere fact that the case of the assessee was accepted as correct in the original assessment for an assessment year, precludes the AO from reopening that assessment u/s 147(a); Whether compensation paid to third parties for crops standing on the land acquired for laying pipelines can be capitalized in the cost of the land for claiming depreciation, even when the same was paid only for avoiding delay in the project; Whether compensation paid for the "Right of Way" to Government agencies which owned the land, for laying gas pipelines underneath their land can be capitalized in the cost of the pipelines; Whether further expenses incurred in security deposit can be capitalized in the cost of such pipelines and Whether acquiring limited right to use a land is an intangible asset. And the verdict partly goes in favour of the assessee. </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">CENVAT - Agreement between appellant (job worker) and principal manufacturer has been entered into to circumvent provisions of Rule 4(4) of CCR, 2004 inasmuch as while principal manufacturer has claimed depreciation under Section 32 of IT Act, 1961, Appellant has availed capital goods CENVAT credit - Stay application dismissed and Pre-deposit ordered of adjudged dues: CESTAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>appellants are manufacturers of confectionery on job work basis for M/s Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. They received capital goods from M/s Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. under a rent agreement and took CENVAT Credit of Rs.33,44,067/- of the duty paid on these capital goods. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Department was of the view that since these capital goods have not been acquired by the appellant from a financing company under a lease or hire purchase or loan agreement, they are not eligible for capital goods CENVAT credit in terms of the provisions of Rule 4(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. </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> <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>