TIOL-DDT 2200 · 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 2200</font><br> 30.09.2013<br> Monday</strong></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">VCES – Dear FM, your officers are trying hard to defeat Scheme </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=18697" target="_blank">DDT 2197 - 25.09.2013</a></strong>, commented, "<em>THE Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme (VCES) is heading for a huge failure and prospective applicants are scared to approach the Department as the declarants are being targeted by the Preventive Wing of the Department.</em>" </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Many thought this to be an exaggeration, but actually it was a gross understatement. See what happened in Noida recently. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On the basis of a declaration made by an assessee under the VCES, the Service Tax Department issued <font color="#FF0000">a notice to the clients of the assessee</font> informing them that the assessee owes an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs and the Department wanted the clients to pay the amount. <font color="#FF0000">The Department also issued notices to the bankers of the assessee</font>. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The assessee approached the High Court with the plea that he was liable to pay the Service Tax, but as he had made an application under the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme he can deposit 50 percent of the tax by December 31 2013 and the balance latest by 31 December 2014. The Recovery action by the Department was a little too premature. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Department argued before the High Court that it was well within its rights to initiate recovery proceedings in spite of a pending application under VCES!!!!!. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court held that the <strong>object of the Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 may be defeated, if the recovery is allowed to proceed</strong>. The High Court suspended the recovery proceedings and ordered release of the bank accounts. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We bring you this judgement today. Please <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=18732" target="_blank">see Breaking News</a></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A Consultant asked me, <em>if this is the position when the scheme is still on – imagine what would be the situation post December 2013</em>?. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The FM wants the scheme to be a success, but his officers are determined to frustrate his efforts. It is nothing but perverted brilliance that would make an officer attach the properties of a declarant under a voluntary compliance scheme passed by Parliament and enthusiastically promoted by the Finance Minister! In fact the Department is spending huge money for advertising the scheme and if this is the attitude of the officers, the Government will not be able to recover even the cost of advertisements. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The message that the officers seem to be sending is - <font color="#FF0000">Beware of VCES; Come at your own risk, survivors will be <strong>prosecuted</strong>. </font></font></p> <p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2">VCES - Noida not wrong </font></strong></font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DDT</strong> adds,</font></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Soon after uploading this DDT, we got a call from the DC (Preventive), Noida clarifying that the declaration under VCES was filed after the raid was conducted and action initiated under Section 87. Para 3 of the High Court order reads : </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>The order dated 7th June, 2013 passed under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 states that on verification of the available records <strong>and the declaration made </strong> by M/s K. Anand Caterers indicate that the petitioner is required to deposit an amount of Rs.60 lacs (Rupees Sixty Lacs ) approx. </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">However, it is clarified by the department that the raid was conducted on 31.05.2013 and the declaration was filed on 20.06.2013 and recovery action was initiated on 7.6.2013 which is also mentioned in the High Court order. <strong>DDT </strong> sincerely apologises for the lapse and regrets the inconvenience caused.</font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Luke warm Response to VCES? </font></strong></p> <p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Dr. DD Rishi</strong>, Advocate writes in, </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The primary reason for the poor response to Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme 2013 is the apprehension by the prospective declarants that once they make a declaration, the Department may later misuse the provisions of Sec 111(1) of the Finance Act, 2013 to harass them. This sub-section reads as under: </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"<strong>111</strong>. (1) Where the Commissioner of Central Excise has reasons to believe that the declaration made by a declarant under this Scheme was substantially false, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, serve notice on the declarant in respect of such declaration requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the tax dues not paid or short-paid." </font></em></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The time limit for issue of show cause notice under the above provision is one year from the date of declaration. In the usual course of things, the Commissioner of Central Excise (and not the Commissioner of Service Tax..??) would ask the field officers to verify whether there is any mis-declaration so as to warrant exercise of powers under the said sub-section. The Trade perceives it to be highly improbable that the field officers would take the risk of giving a clean chit to the declarant, and would, in all probability, play safe by asking the declarant for all his records and somehow cook up something to ward off the necessity of giving such a clean chit. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mistrust between the taxpayer and tax collector often leads to such apprehensions and these are not always based on firm grounds. But, all the same, if the Government wants the VCES to be a success, these apprehensions would have to be addressed to. There is a need for issue of clear and unambiguous guidelines laying down that the action under the said sub-section would be resorted to only when the Department has independent evidence to justify that action, and that the declarant would not be summoned in person or asked to produce his records at that stage. </font></p> <p><em><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Also please see <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=17932" target="_blank">DDT 2122 - 07.06.2013</a> & <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTc5ODA=" target="_blank">DDT 2127 - 14.06.2013</a></font></strong></em></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">VCES – <font color="#FF0000">Loosing</font> Sleep? Footloose in Blunderland </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Delhi Service Tax Commissionerate has sent a communication to the assessees, which reads as, </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Are you <font color="#0000FF">loosing</font> your sleep over Service Tax dues ? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If yes, don't let this opportunity get away !!! </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">For all non-filers, stop-filers and incorrect tax filers...... </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC brings VCES- Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme – 2013 </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">You may not lose your sleep, but something is certainly <strong>loose</strong> somewhere! </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Amount payable when Capital Goods are removed as scrap - CCR Amended </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>RULE</strong> 3(5A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, specifies that <em>when capital goods, on which CENVAT credit has been taken, are removed after being used, whether as capital goods or<strong> as scrap or waste,</strong> the manufacturer or provider of output services shall pay an amount equal to the CENVAT Credit taken on the said capital goods reduced by certain percentage points calculated by straight line method as specified for each quarter of a year or part thereof from the date of taking the CEVAT Credit …. if the amount so calculated is less than the amount equal to the duty leviable on transaction value, the amount to be paid shall be equal to the duty leviable on transaction value. </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This sub-rule does not specify as to what the amount payable is when the capital goods are removed as scrap or waste though scrap and waste is mentioned in the rule. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, the Government has stipulated that the amount payable is the duty leviable on transaction value. (Maybe it could be the duty on depreciated value) </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The entire Rule 3(5A) is substituted. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2013/exnt13_12.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No.12/2013-CE (NT)., Dated: September 27, 2013</font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Customs - Option to close cases of default in Export Obligation </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>BY</strong> Public Notice No. 22/2013, dated 12.08.2013, the DGFT has provided an option for redemption/ regularisation of old cases of default in Export Obligation under (a) Duty Exemption Scheme (b) EPCG Scheme. </font></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">All pending cases of the default in meeting Export Obligation (EO) can be regularised by the authorisation holder on payment of applicable customs duty, corresponding to the shortfall in export obligation, along with interest on such customs duty; but the interest component to be so paid shall not exceed the amount of customs duty payable for this default. </font></em></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">While reporting this in <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=18412" target="_blank">DDT 2168 - 13.08.2013</a></strong>, we had questioned, Will the Customs Department agree? Will they issue a notification/circular? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, the Government has amended 36 Customs Notifications to insert the words, "<em>In a case of default in export obligation, when the duty on goods is paid to regularise the default, <strong>the amount of interest paid by the importer shall not exceed the amount of duty</strong> if such regularisation has been dealt in terms of Public Notice of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce No. 22 (RE-2013)/2009-2014 dated the 12th August, 2013.</em>"</font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2013/ctariff13_046.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No.46/2013-Cus., Dated: September 26, 2013 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Use of Official e-mail id - CBDT Instructions </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBDT</strong> reminds its officers that all official communication through e-mail is to be made only through official e-mail ids. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Directorate of Income Tax (Systems) has allocated e-mail ids with the Domain incometaxindia.gov.into all Officers of the level of Commissioners and above. Officers posted in the attached Directorate(s) of CBDT have also been provided e-mail ids with this domain name. Departmental Users on the ITO Network have the facility to e-mail through Lotus Notes, which they utilize for all official communications. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is instructed that hereinafter all official communication(s) on mail shall be only through the official e-mail ids. In the event that an official e-mail is required to be sent urgently and the official e-mail id not available, the official ids of the CsIT/DsIT may be utilized for the same. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The above Instructions take immediate effect and may be complied with scrupulously. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DDT</strong> had taken up this issue on several occasions. <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTEyMzM=" target="_blank">DDT 1418 - 06.08.2010</a> </strong>asked, "Why are the government officers using private email ids and not the government ones?" </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTEyOTk=" target="_blank">DDT 1428 - 20.08.2010</a></strong> asked, "<strong>Can Government Officials use Private Email ids for Official Correspondence?</strong>" </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A senior Revenue officer was furious with us and asked us as to why he should use a private site like TIOL. </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Company MD sentenced for not depositing TDS </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>Court of the Special Judge, Economic offences, Hyderabad has sentenced the Managing Director of a Public Limited Company to rigorous imprisonment for 3 months along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the two offences committed under section 276B and 276C of the Income Tax Act. The assessee company had deducted tax at source from the salaries, dividends and payments made to the contractors, but had not deposited the tax so deducted to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time. The assessee company had also failed to issue the requisite certificates of TDS u/s 203 of the Income Tax Act. The Court came to the conclusion that the assessee had willfully attempted to evade the payment of tax and had committed offences punishable u/s 276B and 276C(2) of the Act. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per Section 276B,<em> If a person fails to pay to the credit of the Central Government, the tax deducted at source by him as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B……..,he shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and with fine</em>. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per Section 276C(2), <em>If a person wilfully attempts in any manner whatsoever to evade the payment of any tax, penalty or interest under this Act, he shall, without prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him under any other provision of this Act, be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and shall, in the discretion of the court, also be liable to fine. </em></font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">One cannot beat another with a stick, which does not exist </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>NO</strong>, we do not think this is a proverb, but it may as well become one! </font></em></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The facts leading to the Revenue appeal are that the respondent imported used copier machine with standard accessories valued at Rs.13,98,210/-. The import of second hand capital goods including refurbished/re-conditioned spares was allowed only against a license issued in terms of para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09. The respondent could not produce any such license. Therefore proceedings were initiated and the goods were confiscated. However, an option was given to the respondent to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.10,00,000/- and a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- was imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to Rs.2,80,000/- and the penalty to Rs.70,000/- <font color="#FF0000"><em>on the ground that the margin of profit was not determined by the Revenue</em></font>. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Before the CESTAT, the Revenue submitted its grievance that "if that was so", the Commissioner (Appeals) could have himself determined the margin of profit, if need be, or could have remanded back the case. [<em>Had he remanded the case, the Revenue would still have come in appeal saying that the power of remand has been withdrawn by the FA, 2001 and cited the MIL India Ltd. case</em> <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=32&filename=legal/sc/2007/2007-TIOL-30-SC-CX.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">2007-TIOL-30-SC-CX</font></a></strong>.] </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Be that as it may, the Bench held - </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"</font><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">…However, I find that the Department has also not made any efforts to ascertain the margin of profit before/after filing the appeal. One cannot beat another with a stick which does not exist. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The learned Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is upheld and the Revenue's appeal is dismissed."</font></em></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Quite possibly, the Revenue will take the case to the higher level to trace the stick! </font></em></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=OTAwNDI=" target="_blank">2013-TIOL-1444-CESTAT-MUM</a></font></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"> – Tuesday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p> <p><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><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</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CENVAT - Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR, 2004 nowhere envisages that waste and scrap generated at job-worker's premises should be brought back by supplier and if they are not brought back, supplier of raw material is liable to discharge excise duty liability - <em>prima facie</em> strong case in favour –stay granted: CESTAT</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>RAISING</strong> demands of duty on the supplier of CENVATTED materials in respect of the Waste arising at the job workers' end upon processing these raw materials has been always a wasteful expenditure but the Revenue authorities probably revel in this exercise. The liability to pay excise duty arises not under the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 but under Section3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the manufacture of a marketable commodity as specified in the Central Excise Tariff Act. In the instant case, when the waste and scrap has arisen in the job-worker's premises, the job-worker is the manufacturer of waste and scrap so generated and not the appellant, who is the supplier of the raw material </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 when assessee wittingly reports particular income under wrong head to take certain benefits, penalty imposed for concealment is sustainable in law - YES: Delhi HC </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> assessee filed its return of income declaring loss and the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, re-assessment notice was issued after noticing that the assessee had claimed depreciation on plant and machinery though no manufacturing activity was conducted during the year under consideration and had wrongly claimed capital loss on sale of investments amounting to Rs.59,15,000/- as business loss. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The twin questions before the Bench are - Whether when the assessee wittingly reports a particular income under a wrong head to take certain benefits, penalty imposed for concealment is sustainable in law and Whether merely making a claim, which was not sustainable in law should not result in penalization u/s 271(1)(c). And the first question is answered in favour of 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">Commissioner has not explained reasons - We hope that at least this time all submissions made by appellant shall be considered and well-reasoned order shall be passed by original adjudicating authority: CESTAT</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>TO </strong>consider an appeal against an order, there should be some reasoning in the order, which can be considered whether it is appropriate, or not. In the absence of any reasoning in the order, it becomes difficult to consider the same in appeal. In these circumstances, the matter is required to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority.</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>