TIOL-DDT 2157 · 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 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="3">TIOL-DDT 2157</font><br> 26.07.2013 <br> Friday</strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Service Tax - Works Contract prior to 1.6.2007 - Issue referred to Third Member - CESTAT</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CAN </strong>a works contract be vivisected prior to 01/06/2007 and subjected to levy of Service Tax under "erection, installation and commissioning”. This was the 213 Crores rupees question before the CESTAT - of course you have to add the equal penalty and interest and other penalties, which would make it around Rs. 500 Crores. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the CESTAT, there was difference of opinion between the Member (T) and Member(J).</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Member (T) held that a works contract can be vivisected even prior to 01/06/2007 and the service portion discernible in the contract can be subjected to levy of service tax and in the present case, since the discernible service is "erection, installation and commissioning", the said activity is leviable to service tax under section 65 (105) (zzd) read with section 65 (39a)/65 (28) as they stood at the relevant time prior to 01/06/2007 and under Section 65 (105) (zzzza) on or after 01/06/2007. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">He relied on: </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. <em> the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of BSBK Pvt. Ltd </em>. - <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=44&filename=legal/cestat/2010/2010-TIOL-646-CESTAT-DEL-LB.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">2010-TIOL-646-CESTAT-DEL-LB </font></a></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. <em>Tamil Nadu Kalyana Mandapam Association -</em> <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=42&filename=legal/sc/2004/2004-TIOL-36-SC-ST.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">2004-TIOL-36-SC-ST </font></a></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. <em>Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. vs. Govt. of India </em>- <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=42&filename=legal/sc/2012/2012-TIOL-107-SC-ST.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">2012-TIOL-107-SC-ST </font></a></strong></font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But the Member(J) held that a works contract cannot be vivisected prior to 01/06/2007 and subjected to levy of Service Tax under "erection, installation and commissioning". He relied on: </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>1. Jyoti Ltd Vs CCE, Vadodara -</em> <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=44&filename=legal/cestat/2007/2007-TIOL-2337-CESTAT-AHM.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">2007-TIOL-2337-CESTAT-AHM </font></a></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>2. Indian Oil Tanking Ltd </em>- <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=44&filename=legal/cestat/2010/2010-TIOL-1015-CESTAT-MUM.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">2010-TIOL-1015-CESTAT-MUM </font></a></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>3. Apex Court in Govind Saran Ganga Saran Vs Commissioner of Sales Tax </em>- <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=50&filename=legal/sc/2002/2002-TIOL-589-SC-CT.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">2002-TIOL-589-SC-CT </font></a></strong></font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And so the matter is now to be heard by a Third Member. Hopefully, till such time the Third Member's decision comes, CESTAT will liberally grant waiver of pre-deposit in such cases. </font></p> <p><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We will bring you the order as soon as possible. </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mahagaon in Thane notified as ICD </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> CBEC has notified Mahagaon in Thane as an Inland Container Depot for unloading of imported goods and loading of export goods. Mahagaon is a Village in Palghar Taluka in Thane District of Maharashtra State, India. It is located 71 KM towards North from District headquarters Thane, 13 KM from Palghar and 100 KM from State capital Mumbai. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2013/cnt13_079.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification 79/2013 - Cus., (N.T.), Dated: July 24, 2013 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sale of waste or scrap from SEZ to DTA permitted without authorization </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Central Government has amended the FTP, 2009-2014 inasmuch as the phrase "<em><strong>provided these are freely importable"</strong></em> in Para 2.17A of Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014 now <em><strong>stands deleted</strong></em>. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The effect of this notification is that Para 2.17A of FTP has been harmonized with Rule 47 of SEZ Rules, 2006. Accordingly, sale of waste or scrap from SEZ to DTA is permitted without an authorization. </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2013/dgft13not028.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification 28/(RE-2013)/2009-2014, Dated: July 24, 2013 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sanitary Import Permit not required for Human Hair </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>VIDE</strong> notification <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2013/dgft13not018.htm" target="_blank">18 (RE-2013)/2009-2014 dated 11th June, 2013</a></strong>, the Central Government had amended ITC (HS) 2012, Schedule 1 (Import Policy) in respect of entries relating to live-stock to insert the requirement of <font color="#FF0000">Sanitary Import Permit</font> issued by Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, GoI under relevant Chapters of ITC(HS), 2012. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, amendments are made in the said Notification and the effect would be as under - </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">i. Sanitary Import Permit requirements vide Notification No. 18 of 11.6.2013 will not be applicable to Human hair under ITC (HS) Code 0501. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ii. Only items of animal origin or the products intended for animal feeding containing animal origin materials under ITC (HS) Code 2309 will require Sanitary Import Permit. </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2013/dgft13not029.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification 29/(RE-2013)/2009-2014, Dated: July 24, 2013 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Customs Valuation - Royalty paid to Third Party Licensor </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Technical Committee on Customs Valuation of WCO has published <strong>Advisory Opinion 4.15</strong> which provides guidance on a case where royalties have been paid to a third party licensor (in other words, the licensor is not the seller of the goods) and determines whether or not it is appropriate to include the royalty fee in the Customs value of the imported goods. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is almost accepted that the royalties paid by the importer to someone other than the seller of the product must be added to the price paid for the product to determine transaction value when the royalty is related to the imported product and is paid as a condition of sale to the importer. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Advisory opinion confirms that the royalty amount must be added to the price of the imported goods. </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC Plans Ad-hoc promotion to grade of Assistant Commissioners - Wants ACR Dossiers</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBEC</strong> has written to all Chief Commissioners that they urgently require ACR dossiers, vigilance statements, Penalty statements, Integrity Certificates etc,.for Superintendents of Central Excise and Customs. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Board wants the information/documents latest by 31st July 2013. Is it practically feasible and physically possible? Which Chief Commissioner will furnish all the information by 31st July? What was the Board doing all these days? Why this sudden hurry? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And the joke is that in the list of nearly 300 officers whose details the Board wants, about 120 are already retired - and some nearly ten years ago. Where will the Chief Commissioners go to get their ACRs. With this kind of confusion, will the Board ever be able to promote those hapless superintendents? </font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/pdfdocs/wnew/considertn-list-AC-1.pdf"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC F. No. 32012/21/2009-Ad.II, Dated: July 23, 2013 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC - Ad-hoc promotion to grade of Joint Commissioners - Wants ACRs </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBEC</strong> wants to finalise the list of ad-hoc Joint Commissioners by 8th August 2013 and submit the details to UPSC positively by 16.08.2013. Only problem is they don't have the ACRs of some of the officers. So they want the Chief Commissioners to furnish the particulars immediately by 31st July 2013. Here also some officers have already retired. The Chief Commissioners have to go in search of the ACRs of even retired officers. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/pdfdocs/wnew/APAR4jc-promtn.pdf"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC F. No. 28011/24/2012-Ad.II, Dated: July 24, 2013 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CENVAT on services of ‘Construction and Maintenance of township' - when there are different views on very same issue, there is a convention that stay on pre deposits needs to be granted </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CENVAT</strong> credit of more than Rs.9.6crores was denied to the assessed by the CCE, Vadodara and a penalty of more than Rs. 7.6 crores was imposed along with interest. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The reason - the appellant had allegedly availed ineligible CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on different services used in the construction and maintenance of the township. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Before the CESTAT the appellant submitted that construction of a residential township was inevitable as appellant's factory was situated in a remote area and in order to have continuous production, the appellant had accommodated required staff in the township; that the township construction & maintenance cost was included in the cost of production of the goods manufactured in accordance with the cost accounting standard CAS-4 and duty discharged thereon. Reliance is placed on the decisions in <em>GTC Ltd. </em>- <strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=44&filename=legal/cestat/2008/2008-TIOL-1634-CESTAT-MUM-LB.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">(2008-TIOL-1634-CESTAT-MUM-LB)</font></a></font></strong>, ITC - <strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=43&filename=legal/hc/2012/2012-TIOL-199-HC-AP-ST.htm"><font size="1">(2012-TIOL-199-HC-AP-ST)</font></a></font></strong> in support. It is also submitted that they had already reversed an amount of Rs.2.80crores and were facing severe financial hardship. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Revenue representative cited the High Court decision in<em> Manikgarh Cement </em>- <strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=43&filename=legal/hc/2010/2010-TIOL-720-HC-MUM-ST.htm"><font size="1">(2010-TIOL-720-HC-MUM-ST)</font></a></font></strong> to justify the demand and also the Gujarat High Court decision in <em>Cadila Healthcare</em> <strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=43&filename=legal/hc/2013/2013-TIOL-12-HC-AHM-ST.htm" target="_blank">(2013-TIOL-12-HC-AHM-ST)</a></font></font></strong> where it is laid down that if the cost of any expenses is included in the value it would not mean that credit of that service tax or the inputs services will be available. It is also submitted that the Bombay High Court had in case of <em>Ultratech Cement - </em> <strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=43&filename=legal/hc/2010/2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST.htm" target="_blank">(2010-TIOL-745-HC-MUM-ST)</a></font></font></strong> on the issue concerning ‘catering service' held that only in respect of those services which are mandatory credit can be allowed and in the present case provision of residential colony is not mandatory or statutory. Inasmuch as the appellant should be directed to make further deposit for hearing and disposing the appeals. </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">"7. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the record. We find that the issue involved in this case is debatable for more than one reason. Firstly, the duty of eligibility of CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on the services which are used in the residential complex, High Courts have taken different views, the facts of the case of ITC Ltd. where in High Court of Andhra Pradesh has upheld the order of the tribunal are more akin to the case in hand, at the same time, judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Ultratech Cement and Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat are taking a different view in respect of specific services rendered at the residential complex. We find that the argument put forth for the ld. counsel that the residential complex is within factory is an argument which needs to be considered and was not put before High Court of Gujarat or Bombay for deeper consideration. Be that as it may, we are of the view that when there are different views on the very same issue, there is convention, that stay on pre deposits needs to be granted if facts are akin, we have already recorded that the facts in this case, are akin to the facts of the case wherein Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has decided the issue."</font></em></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Bench also noted that the amount of deposit made by the appellant works out to 25% of the confirmed demand. Holding that the issue is an arguable one and there is a claim of financial hardship, the amount deposited was considered enough to hear and dispose of the appeal. In fine, stay was granted. </font></p> <p><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See <font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=ODkyMzY=" target="_blank">2013-TIOL-1128-CESTAT-AHM </a></font></font></strong></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DDT Cartoon</font></strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/Truthful_Misconduct.jpg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="424" height="479" hspace="5" border="0" align="center"></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"> - 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">Central Excise</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether the Commissioner having once determined Annual Capacity of Production, can, on discovery of new and additional evidence/material, which assessee failed to disclose or suppressed, can redetermine same? - Tribunal directed to state and refer this question to High Court: HC </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>HIGH </strong>Court directed the Tribunal to state and refer following question under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to this court. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether the Commissioner having once determined the Annual Capacity of Production, can, on discovery of new and additional evidence/material, which the assessee failed to disclose or suppressed, can redetermine the same? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, now the CESTAT is required to state and refer the above question to the High Court, within 120 days. Thereafter, the High Court will again hear the matter and give its opinion and send it back to the Tribunal. Then the Tribunal will give its order on the appeal based on the High Court's findings. And this order can be again appealed to the High Court. </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 cess and cess surcharge fall within characteristics of tax even if they do not become a part of Consolidated Fund of India and it is not allowable u/s 43B - NO: Delhi 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 the claim of expenditure on the basis of accrued liability to pay cess and cess surcharge under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 could be disallowed by invoking Section 43B of the Income Tax Act; Whether from the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill, 1988, it can be safely concluded that the word “cess or duty” inserted in section 43B by amendment is not retrospective in nature; Whether the cess and cess surcharge fall within the characteristics of a tax, when they do not become part of the consolidated fund, but a part of the special funds; Whether tax collected is used for general public purpose whereas cess is for a specific purpose; Whether deposits received by the assessee from buyers on refundable basis towards possible levy of sales tax on packing charges and freight amounts to either collection "as sales tax" or collection "by way of tax" and Whether such amount can be considered as trading receipt and liable to be disallowed u/s 43B. 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">Information and tracking of delivery schedule, managing distribution & logistics, received from outside India is correctly classifiable under the category of "Management Consultancy Services" & not "Business Support Services": CESTAT</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> appellant is registered in respect of the taxable services such as Transport of the goods by air/road, Courier agency services, Management consultancy services and Online information and Database access and retrieval services. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">During the course of audit, it was noticed that the appellant had classified the services, namely, information and tracking of delivery schedule, managing distribution & logistics, received from outside India, under the category of "Management Consultancy Services" and the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit of the Service Tax paid on these services under Rule 6(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.</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"> <strong><a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com</a></strong></font></p> </body> </html>