TIOL-DDT 2136 · 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 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 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 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=17063"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/limca_book2013.jpg" alt="DDT in Limca Book of Records" width="175" height="120" hspace="5" border="0" align="right"></a></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 2136</font> <br> 27.06.2013<br> Thursday </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Does the Board remember its Circular on Collection of Anti Dumping Duty beyond the validity period? </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>BOARD</strong> vide Circular No. 28/2011-Cus dated 08.07.2011 analysed the Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act and stated: </font></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">From a plain reading of this provision it is evident that definitive/final anti-dumping duty can be collected only for a period of five years from the date of its imposition. Generally by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 9A of the Customs tariff Act, 1975, the anti dumping levy notified in pursuance of final findings of the Director General (AD) is effective from the date of imposition of provisional duty and therefore the period of five years is to be computed from such date. Collection beyond that period is permissible only when the said levy is extended by a notification either for further period of five years (in pursuance of the final findings of the Designated Authority in a Sun Set Review) or for one year (during the pendency of Sun Set Review). Thus, a definitive/final anti-dumping duty can be collected beyond the stipulated period only when a notification extending the levy has been issued,<strong> before the expiry of the parent notification</strong>. Unless such revalidation or extension is carried out by a fresh notification, the collection of final anti-dumping duty should cease on the completion of five years as mentioned above. Where the findings in a review are notified after the lapse of the parent notification, the notification in such cases would be effective prospectively from the date of issue of such notification . </font></em></p> <p><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If the Board does not follow its own circular, who will? </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti-dumping Duty on ‘Acetone' continues </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>BY</strong> Notification No. 75/2008-Cus dated 10th June 2008, definitive Anti-dumping duty was imposed on "Acetone" falling under heading 2914 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and originating in, or exported from, Korea ROK.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is obvious that the notification has outlived its shelf life of five years in view of the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, the Central Government by employing the proviso to the afore cited sub-section has sought to infuse life into the notification and carry on with the imposition of anti-dumping duty on the subject goods by way of an amending notification and by inserting the following paragraph in the existing notification. It reads - </font></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"3. Notwithstanding anything contained in this notification, the anti-dumping duty imposed herein shall remain in force up to and inclusive of the 9th day of June, 2014, unless revoked earlier."</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In effect, this amending notification also seeks to retrospectively cover the period beginning the 9th day of June, 2013 to the date of issuance of the present notification. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why cannot the Board keep a track of its OWN notifications and do the needful before the D-day…but then any day is D-day. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interestingly, whereas the notification 75/2008-Cus referred to Korea (ROK) and which is Republic of Korea i.e South Korea the amending notification refers to Korea RP. Hope they are referring to the same country! </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=337&filename=notification/custom/2013/ctariffadd13_012.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No.12 /2013-Customs (ADD), Dated June 25, 2013 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti-dumping duty on Pentaerythritol also continues </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>BY</strong> notification 74/2011-Cus dated 12th August, 2011, imposition of Anti-dumping duty on "Pentaerythritol", falling under heading 2905 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), originating in, or exported from, Chinese Taipei was continued for a period up to 27th April, 2013. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, the Central government has realized that that date has already come and gone but the damage caused to the domestic industry by dumping of ‘Pentaerythritol' still continues. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, to set things right, a new notification has been issued and which does the following in the referred notification. </font></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the said notification, in paragraph 2, for the words and figures "27th April, 2013”, the words and figures "27th day of April, 2014, unless revoked earlier” shall be substituted. </font></em></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is nothing to say because it is like this always. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=337&filename=notification/custom/2013/ctariffadd13_013.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No.13 /2013-Customs (ADD), Dated June 25, 2013 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">FEMA - Export of Goods and Services - Project Exports </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AT</strong> present, an exporter undertaking Project Exports and Service contracts abroad should submit form DPX1, PEX-1 and TCS-1 to the Approving Authority (AA) i.e. AD Bank/ Exim Bank/ Working Group, within <strong>15 days</strong> of entering into contract for grant of post-award approval. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On a review, it has been decided to increase the time limit and henceforth the exporter undertaking Project Exports and Service contracts abroad should submit form DPX1, PEX-1 and TCS-1 to the Approving Authority (AA) i. e. AD Bank / Exim Bank / Working Group, within <strong>30 days </strong>of entering into contract for grant of post-award approval. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=280&filename=notification/rbi/2012/rbi12cir118.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">RBI A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No.118, Dated: June 26, 2013 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">FEMA - ECB Policy - Import of Services, Technical know-how and License Fees </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AT</strong> present, eligible borrowers can raise External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) for investment such as import of capital goods (as classified by DGFT in the Foreign Trade Policy), new projects, modernization / expansion of existing production units in the real sector - industrial sector including small and medium enterprises (SME), infrastructure sector as defined under the ECB policy and entities in service sector viz. hotels, hospitals and software companies. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On a review, it has been decided to include import of services, technical knowhow and payment of license fees as part of import of capital goods by the companies for the use in the manufacturing and infrastructure sectors as permissible end uses of ECB under the automatic / approval route as the case may be subject to certain conditions. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=280&filename=notification/rbi/2012/rbi12cir119.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">RBI A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No.119, Dated: June 26, 2013 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">FEMA - External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) Policy - Structured Obligations </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AT</strong> present, credit enhancement is permitted to be provided by multilateral / regional financial institutions, Government owned development financial institutions, direct/indirect foreign equity holder(s) under the automatic route for domestic debt raised through issue of capital market instruments, such as, Rupee denominated bonds and debentures, by Indian companies engaged exclusively in the development of infrastructure (as defined under the extant ECB policy) and by Infrastructure Finance Companies (IFCs), which have been classified as such by the Reserve Bank. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On a review, it has been decided that credit enhancement can be provided by eligible non-resident entities to the domestic debt raised through issue of INR bonds/ debentures by all borrowers eligible to raise ECB under the automatic route. It has also been decided to reduce the minimum average maturity of the underlying debt instruments from seven years to three years. Prepayment and call/put options, however, would not be permissible for such capital market instruments up to an average maturity period of 3 years. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=280&filename=notification/rbi/2012/rbi12cir120.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">RBI A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No.120, Dated: June 26, 2013 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3500 Show Cause Notices pending in a Commissionerate! </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>A</strong> senior officer told us that in a Commissionerate, 3500 Show Cause Notices are pending adjudication. As per the Board's norms, a Commissioner is required to adjudicate 10 cases in a month. If he is a hard-core follower of Board's instructions, it will take him about 30 years to clear these Show Cause Notices and the inflow is another 150 per month. When will they clear the pendency? Maybe they would need an army of adjudicators. Every Audit results in a Show Cause Notice. Assured food for the consultants for another generation! </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ROA filed after 16 years - request for restoration is to be filed within 3 months from dismissal of appeal - ROA application dismissed </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IN </strong>July, 1987, the <em>Collector of Central Excise, Baroda</em> had passed an o-in-o and against this order the appellant assessee had filed an appeal before the CESTAT in the same year. After almost ten years the appeal was dismissed by the CESTAT for non-prosecution. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then there was an eerie silence and at the dawn of this year, the appellant filed an application for Restoration of the appeal. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">When the matter came before the Bench, the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has no power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution and the appeal should have been decided on merits. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Revenue representative submitted that it is too late in the day for filing a ROA; that this sixteen year delay is unjustified and the application is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on the decision in <em>Kirtikumar Jawaharlal Shah vs. UOI</em> <strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=ODg4MTg=" target="_blank">(2011-TIOL-953-HC-BOM-CX)</a></font></font></strong> and the Tribunal decision <strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=ODg4MTc=" target="_blank">(2009-TIOL-2593-CESTAT-MUM)</a></font></font> </strong>to submit that request for restoration is to be made within three months from the dismissal of the appeal. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Bench observed - </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"6. We find that the present application is filed after almost 16 years from the order of dismissal. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kirtikumar Jawaharlal Shah vs. Union of India supra held that though there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing an application for setting aside the order of dismissal, the Tribunal was justified in holding that in any case since the application was filed beyond the period of three months from the date of dismissal of appeal. In view of the above, the application for restoration of the appeal is dismissed.” </font></em></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hopefully, the Revenue must have made the recovery of the adjudged dues long back or is this ROA a ‘cosmetic' offshoot of the proceedings initiated in terms of Circular <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTQ1NDA=" target="_blank">967</a></strong>. </font></p> <p align="left"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=ODg4NDk=" target="_blank"><font size="1">2013-TIOL-972-CESTAT-MUM </font></a></font></strong></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br> Amnesty Scheme for smuggled motor vehicles held illegal </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>WITH</strong> much fanfare, the Government had introduced an Amnesty Scheme on 5th March, 2013 for smuggled or non-duty paid motor vehicles, having non-tampered engine or chassis numbers, which have been seized or voluntarily presented to Customs on or before the 31st March, 2013. Under the Scheme the aforesaid vehicles were allowed to be released on payment of redemption fine along with duty and taxes. The redemption fine to be charged was to be 1% of the payable duty and taxes, and the scheme warranted that the customs-duty and other taxes along with redemption fine so levied thereon were paid on or before the 31st March, 2013. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">After rumours started going around that the scheme was going to be extended beyond 31 st March, the Revenue Board came out with a clarification that these were unfounded rumours and that no such extension would be given. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On the last day of the scheme came another Press Release which clarified that those ‘unfounded' rumours were not unfounded after all and the scheme <font color="#FF0000">saw an extension</font> till the 6th April, 2013. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This scheme attracted criticism for the reason - </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">+ It is learnt that as many as 50,852 vehicles were legalized in just one month which included only 7324 confiscated vehicles meaning that <font color="#CC3333">more than 40,000 vehicles were imported under this scheme for trading purpose. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">+ The stats reveal that some of the <font color="#CC3333">world's most expensive and luxury vehicles were legalised under the scheme</font> which includes Lamborghini Gallardo, Rolls-Royce, Mercedes-Benz S/E Class, BMWs, Range Rovers, Cadillac, Bentley, Jaguars, Ford Mustangs and other luxury SUVs like Land Cruisers, Prado, Lexus and Mitsubishi Pajero. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The President of Defense of Human Rights of Public Services Trust had filed a Petition in the High Court against this scheme. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Court accepted the petition <strong>against</strong> the Amnesty scheme. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Inasmuch as the Order issued by the government introducing the Amnesty Scheme on March 5, 2013 was held as null <strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF0000">and</font></strong></font></font></strong> void <strong>the Revenue Board was directed to impound the smuggled vehicles and auction the same</strong>. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#0066CC" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">All this happened across our border - in </font><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Pakistan </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#0066CC">and this judgment was delivered by the Islamabad High Court. </font></font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Will this happen in our country? Also see</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTc2NTU=" target="_blank">DDT 2096</a></strong> <font color="#FF0000">and</font> <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=18007" target="_blank">2129</a></strong>.</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">Central Excise</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Gums/Waxes & Recovered oil/fatty acids arising during manufacture of Refined Rice Bran oil are entitled to the benefit of exemption notf. 89/95-CE - waste exempted in public interest vide said notification is necessarily only such waste which is marketable, excisable and dutiable because grant of exemption from duty would only arise if goods are otherwise dutiable - appeals allowed: CESTAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Refined Rice Bran Oil, SH 1515 9040 and is liable to nil rate of duty vide Notification No. 3/2006-C.E dated 1.3.2006. Crude Rice Bran Oil contains certain impurities knows as Gums, Waxes and Fatty Acids. To produce Refined Rice Bran Oil meeting the standards as laid down in the Food Regulations, these impurities are compulsorily required to be removed and the same are removed by as residues in the form of Gums / Waxes and Recovered Oil / Fatty Acids. The Appellant had been clearing these residues without payment of excise duty claiming exemption under Notification No. 89/95-C.E. dated 18.5.1995 which exempts ‘waste, parings and scrap' arising in the course of manufacture of exempted goods. </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">I-T-Whether provision of section 50C has no application where transfer of immovable property is on account of sale of stock - 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 the profit and gains from the sale of asset held as stock in trade, is liable to be taxed as profit and gains from business or as capital asset and Whether the provision of section 50C has no application where transfer of immovable property is on account of sale of stock. And the verdict goes in favour of the assessee. </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">‘Packaging Services' - as per Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, packaging is a statutory requirement - activity of packaging would form an integral part of manufacturing activity u/s 2(f) of CEA, 1944 and cannot be viewed as a service activity- strong <em>prima facie</em> case in favour - Stay granted: CESTAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> appellants are engaged in providing packaging activity services in relation to fertilizer manufactured by M/s. Zuari Industries Ltd., Goa, for which they received consideration. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The department was of the view that the activity undertaken by the appellant would come within the purview of "packaging services" as defined in Section 65 (76b) of the Finance Act, 1994 and, therefore, the appellant was issued a SCN demanding service tax of Rs.3,20,47,239/- for the period 16/06/2005 to 31/03/2010. Such a large amount of demand met with confirmation at the hands of the CCE, Goa along with interest and penalty. </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 align="justify"><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>