TIOL-DDT 2207 · 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 2207</font><br> 10.10.2013 <br> Thursday</strong></font></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 - Board Explains </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>BY</strong> <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=47&filename=notification/dgft/2013/dgft13pn022.htm" target="_blank">Public Notice No. 22 (RE-2013)/2009-2014</a><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=47&filename=notification/dgft/2013/dgft13pn022.htm">, dated 12.08.2013,</a></strong> 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 <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=18412"><strong>DDT 2168 13.08.2013</strong>,</a> we had questioned, Will the Customs Department agree? Will they issue a notification/ <strong>circular</strong>? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Government by Notification No. 46/2013-Customs dated 26.09.2013 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 align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, Board has issued that much required Circular. Board clarifies that: </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. The cases where export obligation period is yet to be over, are not covered under the Option. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Normally no refund is envisaged to arise on account of choosing the Option. However, there may be cases of calculation mistakes to be dealt on merits. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=47&filename=notification/dgft/2013/dgft13pn022.htm" target="_blank">DGFT PN No. 22 (RE-2013)/2009-2014 dated 12.8.13</a></strong> specifies that necessary procedures would be indicated separately.</font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board wants Commissioners to ensure that the cases under the Option are monitored and tracked from the initial stages of exporter approaching for paying the duty, etc. so that there is efficient handling and the subsequent actions, for expeditious closure of these older cases of bona fide EO default, take place seamlessly, if infringement of other conditions is not involved. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board also wants the Commissioners to put in place suitable mechanism for this and closely supervise it. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=25&filename=notification/custom/2013/cuscir13_040.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC Circular No. 40/2013-Cus., Dated: October 09, 2013</font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">FTP - MEP on Export of Edible Oils </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> has amended Serial No. 4 of Notification No 22(RE-2012)/2009-14 dated 18th June 2013 relating to Sl. No. 92 of Schedule 2 of ITC(HS) Classification of Export & Import Items. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This stipulates that export of edible oils in branded consumer packs of up to 5 Kgs is permitted with a Minimum Export Price of USD 1400 per MT. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">MEP on export of edible oils in branded consumer packs of upto 5 Kgs has been reduced to USD 1400 per MT from USD 1500 per MT.</font></p> <p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2013/dgft13not045.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT Notification No. 45 (RE - 2013)/2009-2014., Dated: October 09, 2013 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBI Arrests Customs DC in Gold Smuggling Case </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBI</strong> has arrested a Customs Deputy Commissioner and a Preventive Officer in Kochi, Kerala for their alleged role in smuggling of gold from Dubai through the Kochi airport. The CBI is all set to arrest another Assistant Commissioner who has just been transferred out of the Kochi airport. Last month, the Kochi airport Customs had in what was perhaps the biggest seizure in an airport seized 20 kgs of gold from two burkha-clad women. The alleged kingpin in the smuggling, Fayaz was also recently arrested. He is said to have friends in the right places including the Chief Minister's office. He is said to have had several Customs officers as his accomplices in the smuggling operations. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The arrested Deputy Commissioner is said to be not only an accomplice but also an active partner in the smuggling business. He is due to retire soon - but now…. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This news is sensational even in distant Gulf - it was reported by <em><strong>Khaleej Times</strong></em> and <em><strong>Gulf News</strong></em>. </font></p> <p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Commissioner (A) does not have any jurisdiction to pass orders in the matter of recovery proceedings initiated u/s 11 of CEA, 1944 </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>PURSUANT</strong> to the final order passed by the Settlement Commission, Customs & Central Excise, the Deputy Commissioner issued an attachment order under section 11 of the CEA, 1944 for the recovery of the Government dues. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against this attachment order and he was more than pleased to set aside the same. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aggrieved with this order, Revenue has filed an appeal before the CESTAT and submits that the Commissioner (A) could not have entertained the appeal in the first place as the same were initiated in terms of section 11 of the CEA, 1944. </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">"</font><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5.1 It is a well settled position that recovery proceedings under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is without jurisdiction and hence bad in law. Accordingly, we set aside the same and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue."</font></em></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See <font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=OTAyMzE=" target="_blank">2013-TIOL-1495-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"> – 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">CENVAT - Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - Shipping fee paid on tugs and barges used for transportation of raw materials from mother vessel to jetty - ST paid by appellant under category of "port services" - whether Input service - stay granted: CESTAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> appellants are manufacturers of hot briquetted iron and sponge iron. They paid shipping fees on the tugs and barges operated and used by them for the transportation of raw materials from the mother vessel to the jetty at Revdanda Port. For operating the vessel, they paid shipping fee under the category of “port services” and discharged the service tax liability thereon and availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Revenue was of the view that the appellant is not eligible for the credit as there was no nexus with the manufacturing activity undertaken by 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"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether mistake, which entails evidences to proof itself, is mistake apparent from record - NO: ITAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ASSESSEE,</strong> a company, engaged in the business of Airline and Institutional catering, filed its return of income (ROI) declaring an income of Rs. 36.06 Crores. During assessment, income of the assessee was determined at Rs.44.07 Crores after making addition of Rs. 7.78 Crores on account of disallowance of depreciation on goodwill. The issues before the Bench are - Whether a mistake which entails evidences to proof itself is a mistake apparent from record; Whether an error of judgment can be corrected through a rectification application u/s 254(2); What is the remedy available for such an error; Whether an order admitting additional evidence can act as a precedent and Whether Tribunal can recall its order in entirety as per the provisions of law. And the verdict goes against the assessee. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Central Excise </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Section 4A - Goods of chapter heading 85.36 - Whether demands for period prior to 1.3.2008 are sustainable or not as there were no machinery provisions available to determine MRP of product till date of framing of Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008 - Difference of Opinion - Matter referred to Third Member: CESTAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>appellants are manufacturers of goods falling under chapter heading 85.36 of the CETA, 1985 which heading goods came to be notified for assessment based on the Retail Sale Price in terms of section 4A of the CEA, 1944 by notification <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2002/exnt02_13.htm" target="_blank">13/2002-CE(NT)</a></strong> dated 01/03/2002. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">None of the manufacturers affixed MRP on their products, which were sold to their dealers/distributors from their factory or depots, and the reasoning given was that their products were not covered by P.C. Rules inasmuch as the goods were not a pre-packed commodity and were not sold by weight, measure or number. The appellants were also making the following declaration on the packing ‘ Specially packed for the exclusive use of any industry as a raw material or for the purpose of servicing of any industry, mine or quarry. For industrial use only and not intended to be displayed for sale at a retail outlet '. </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> <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> </body> </html>