TIOL-DDT 2011 · 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 2011 </font><br>
27.12.2012<br>
Thursday </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CESTAT - Bar Vs Registry <br>
Bar shall not be caused hardship by Registry by set of procedure not prescribed by Judicial Manual</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THERE</strong> was a strange case recently before the Principal Bench of the CESTAT at New Delhi. An advocate mentioned that the Registry failed to discharge its duty according to the procedure prescribed by Chapter 4 of Judicial Manual in respect of receipt of appeal memo for which members of the Bar are harassed. He submitted that he was <strong>compelled </strong>to file application for condonation of delay by the Registry. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">President of the Bar, RK Jain submitted that <em>codified procedure is prescribed by Chapter 4 of Judicial manuals which is to be read with Rule 11(4) of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for harmonious construction of the procedural aspect of filing and scrutiny of appeal by the Registry. Keeping in view statutory right of the appellant the Judicial Manual in chapter 4 has designed procedure which should not be defeated by the Registry which otherwise deprives appellants to exercise their right to appeal. If there is any defect in appeal, in terms of the procedure prescribed by Rule 4.03 of Chapter 4 of Judicial Manual, that defect may be intimated to the appellant for curing the same without compulsion since curable defects do not take away right to appeal. Therefore, such valuable right should not be casually denied on flimsy ground of technicalities without scrutiny according to procedure prescribed by Judicial Manual. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Tribunal Bench took note of the difficulties expressed by the Bar. The Bench observed, "<em>We hope members of the Bar shall not be caused hardship by the Registry by a set of procedure not prescribed by Judicial Manual. With this, we conclude the matter stating that Registry is to act according to the procedure laid down in Chapter-4 of Judicial Manual and prevent further discontent of Bar</em>". </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hope the Registry gets the message, not the one at Delhi alone but other places too. <a></a></font></p>
<p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please see
<em><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=34&filename=legal/cestat/2012/2012-TIOL-1945-CESTAT-DEL.htm"><font size="1">2012-TIOL-1945-CESTAT-DEL </font></a></em> </font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti-Dumping
Duty on Phthalic Anhydride </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> has imposed anti dumping duty on Phthalic Anhydride originating in, or exported from, Korea RP, Taiwan (Chinese Taipei) and Israel. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The anti-dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be levied for a period of five years (unless revoked, amended or superseded earlier) from 24.12.2012 and shall be paid in Indian currency. </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=337&filename=notification/custom/2012/ctariffadd12_058.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 58/2012-Cus., (ADD), Dated: December 24, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Registration of contracts with DGFT for export of sugar </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>POLICY</strong> Circular No. 62(RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 14.05.2012 prescribed the conditions and modalities for registration of contracts with DGFT for export of sugar. Certain amendments were brought in through Policy Circular No. 63(RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 16.05.2012. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exporters desirous of exporting sugar may continue to obtain Registration Certificates accordingly. The conditions and modalities as mentioned in Policy Circular No. 62(RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 14.05.2012 and as modified by Policy Circular No. 63(RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 16.05.2012 will continue to apply. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Attention of sugar factories is invited to provisions in para 5 of Policy circular 62 of 14th May 2012, which states: <em>"….. Sugar mill supplying sugar to an RC holder will intimate DGFT at the designated e mail id</em> <a href="mailto:sugarexport-dgft@nic.in"><strong>sugarexport-dgft@nic.in</strong> </a><em>immediately after such supply." </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sugar factories are directed to comply with this requirement without fail. </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=46&filename=notification/dgft/2012/dgft12cir008.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT Policy Circular No. 8/(RE-2012)/2009-14, Dated: December 24, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Companies - Filing of Cost Audit Report and Compliance Report </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>MINISTRY</strong> of Corporate Affairs has decided that all cost auditors and the companies concerned are allowed to file their Cost Audit Reports and Compliance Reports for the year 2011-12 [including the overdue reports relating to any previous year(s)] with the Central Government in the XBRL mode, without any penalty, within 180 days from the close of the company's financial year to which the report relates or by January 31, 2013, whichever is later. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Government has requested the Institute of Cost Accountants of India to circulate this for the information of all concerned. </font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=wnew/mca_circular_43_2012.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">MCA General Circular No. 43/2012, Dated: December 26, 2012 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Year End Drug Smuggling</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>LAST</strong> week, four Indians were arrested in Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) for drug smuggling. In the year 2012, 19 Indians were arrested in Kuala Lumpur for attempting to smuggle drugs. Those arrested last week include a housewife. They face the death sentence! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Meanwhile, yesterday the Air Intelligence Unit of Mumbai Customs is reported to have arrested a Nigerian national with 3.2 kg of party drug cocaine worth Rs. 3.2 crore. </font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Employee not paid salary hence did not inform appellant about hearing date - Appeals restored on payment of cost</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AGAINST </strong>an order passed by the <em>Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva</em> in the year 2009, the appellants had filed appeals before the CESTAT. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">However, these appeals were dismissed by the CESTAT by observing that the matter had been listed on several occasions but the appellant had failed to appear indicating that they were not interested in pursuing the appeals. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The appellants are now before the CESTAT with an application for restoration of their appeals. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is submitted that they have been out of business since 2005 and they have not been able to revive their business and had engaged on employee to receive communication from various places including the Government departments; that since the said employee could not get salary on time, he did not inform the appellants; therefore, they were not aware of notice of hearing on 30.03.2012 and hence could not be present. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CESTAT sympathised with the appellants and passed the following order - </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"4. In this case, it has been observed that the non-representation of the appellants is not restricted to 30.03.2012 only. The case has been listed several times earlier on 19.12.2011, 20.01.2012 and 30.03.2012 was given as a last chance. Therefore, it is not a case for non-appearance on single occasion but on several occasions. Therefore, the explanation given by the appellant is not convincing as to why they were not represented on earlier occasions. Since the case has been dismissed for non-prosecution, we are of the view that the applications for restoration should be considered only on cost basis." </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Taking this view, the Bench directed the appellants to pay a cost of Rs.5000/- for each of the appeals within four weeks and report compliance pursuant to which the appeals/stay applications would be restored. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>See
<em><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=28&filename=legal/cestat/2012/2012-TIOL-1946-CESTAT-MUM.htm"><font size="1">2012-TIOL-1946-CESTAT-MUM </font></a></em> </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Also see <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=180&filename=legal/settle/2006/2006-TIOL-06-SETTLE-MUM.htm" target="_blank"><em><font size="1">2006-TIOL-06-SETT-MUM</font></em></a></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"> - 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">Port Services - supply of fresh water by barge and bunker to vessels is part of port services - it is not simple transaction of sale of water - from invoice it is quite clear that it is not cost of water alone that is charged, but it includes other elements - appellants have not made prima facie case in favour - Pre-deposit ordered of Rs.3.5 Crores: CESTAT</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ALLOWING</strong> another person to use the goods without giving legal right or possession and effective control is treated as service. In this case, what is evident is that the boat/barges have been supplied as seen from invoice. Since no Sales Tax has been paid and no evidence has been shown that the transaction is a transaction of right to use and was liable to sale tax, the natural conclusion would be that the transaction is supply of tangible goods for use without parting with the right of possession and control. While the appellants have made a claim that the expenses incurred by them on fuel has not been proved to be incurred for the boats and barges supplied to customers, they have also not shown that they had other barges and boats and the expenses incurred were in relation to other items and not to the boats/barges supplied. In the absence of any agreement, the only document available is invoices and invoices do not support the claim of the appellant. </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"><font size="2"><strong><font color="#FF6633" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I-T
- </font></strong></font><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Whether
when summons are issued to share allottees and they fail to respond to
such notices, onus shifts back on assessee who becomes liable to addition
u/s 68 - YES: Delhi HC</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>issues before the Bench
are - Whether when the summons u/s 131 are issued to share allottees and
they fail to respond to such notices, the onus shifts back on the assessee
who becomes liable to addition u/s 68 and Whether the concept of 'shifting
onus' means that after assessee provides certain details about the share
allotees and the assessee's duty gets over. And the Revenue's appeal is
upheld.</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">Clearance of inputs to sister unit without raising any invoice or reversing CENVAT credit is clear violation of CCR, 2004 - there was an intention to evade payment of duty on part of appellant - Penalties rightly confirmed by Commissioner(A) - Appeals dismissed: CESTAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> appellants have cleared the input as such without raising any invoices for such clearance and they have neither paid the duty nor reversed the CENVAT Credit. If the said issue was not noticed by the Revenue, the appellants would have continued to clear the inputs to their sister unit without payment of duty. Therefore, the appellants have clearly violated the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules and accordingly, liable to penalty under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules.</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"> <strong><a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com</a></strong></font></p>
</body>
</html>