TIOL-DDT 2208 · 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 align="justify"><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></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 2208 </font><br>
</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>11.10.2013 <br>
Friday </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Service Tax on Commission Paid to Foreign Agents - Entitled to CENVAT Credit? </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IF</strong> I pay a Commission to my foreign agent for promoting and procuring orders abroad for goods manufactured by me, I am required to pay Service Tax in India on the reverse charge basis. Now, can I take CENVAT credit of the Service Tax paid? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The general understanding is that I can. And in fact CBEC had in Circular No. <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2011/excircular943.htm">943/04/2011-CX,</a></strong> dated April 29, 2011, clarified as follows: </font></p>
<table width="90%" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td valign="top"><p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is the credit of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) on account of sales commission now disallowed after the deletion of expression "activities related to business"? </font></p></td>
<td valign="top"><p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The definition of input services allows all credit on services used for clearance of final products upto the place of removal. Moreover activity of sale promotion is specifically allowed and on many occasions the remuneration for same is linked to actual sale. Reading the provisions harmoniously it is clarified that credit is admissible on the services of sale of dutiable goods on commission basis. </font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Further by Notification No. 42/2012-ST, dated 29.06.2012, <em>Service provided by a commission agent located outside India and engaged under a contract or agreement or any other document by the exporter in India, to act on behalf of the exporter, to cause sale of goods exported by him </em>is exempted with certain conditions. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">However the Gujarat High Court has in <em>Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Cadila Healthcare Limited </em><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=43&filename=legal/hc/2013/2013-TIOL-12-HC-AHM-ST.htm"><em><font size="1">(2013-TIOL-12-HC-AHM-ST)</font></em> </a></strong>held, "<em>though the business activities mentioned in the definition are not exhaustive, the service rendered by the commission agents not being analogous to the activities mentioned in the definition, would not fall within the ambit of the expression "activities relating to business". Consequently, CENVAT credit would not be admissible in respect of the commission paid to foreign agents.</em>" </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Earlier the Punjab & Haryana High Court had in <em>CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Ambika Overseas - </em> <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=ODgxMDg="><font size="1"><strong><em>2011-TIOL-951-HC-P&H-ST</em></strong></font>,</a> upheld the Tribunal's view that, " <em>the definition of the ‘input services' includes services used in relation to ‘sales promotion' and these activities can rightly be described as sales promotion activities. Sales promotion activities undertaken at given point of time also aims at sales of goods, which are to be manufactured and cleared on future. Any advertisement given as a long-term impact cannot be treated as post- clearance activities and, therefore, sales promotion has been specifically included in the definition of input services." </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">However the Gujarat High Court did not concur with the views of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This creates a strange situation - while in Punjab and Haryana, credit is to be allowed, it has to be denied in Gujarat. As for other States, the Tribunal and other authorities are free to follow either Gujarat or P&H High Courts. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Gujarat High Court order is under appeal to the Supreme Court, while there seems to be no appeal against the Punjab & Haryana High Court. It has to be noted that against the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Government had to go in appeal, while against the Gujarat High Court, it is the party. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, can it be assumed that the Government has accepted the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court? The Supreme Court had just two days ago commented on the litigation policy of the Government - that a little later in this edition of DDT. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If so, is the credit available? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe, CBEC should give another clear clarification. </font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Government's Litigation Policy - be a little more practical and a little more serious - Supreme Court </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IN </strong>a judgement delivered on 8th October 2013 <strong><font size="1">(<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=OTAyMjk=">2013-TIOL-52-SC-IT-LB</a>)</font></strong>, the Supreme Court observed, </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>"Revenue cannot be allowed to flip-flop on the issue and it ought let the matter rest rather than spend the tax payers' money in pursuing litigation for the sake of it. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There was, therefore, no need for the Revenue to continue with this litigation when it was quite clear that not only was it fruitless (on merits) but also that it may not have added anything much to the public coffers." </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Supreme Court hoped that the <em>Revenue implements its litigation policy a little more practically and a little more seriously.</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Court also quoted from the judgement in <em>Hoystead v. Commissioner of Taxation, 1926 AC 155 (PC) - "Parties are not permitted to begin fresh litigation because of new views they may entertain of the law of the case, or new versions which they present as to what should be a proper apprehension by the court of the legal result either of the construction of the documents or the weight of certain circumstances. If this were permitted, litigation would have no end, except when legal ingenuity is exhausted." </em></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Revenue Collections - by means fair or foul? </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>WE</strong> received this mail from a harried importer. </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Is it fair to collect the revenue in this way? </strong></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We are a company of Tractor Manufacturer; we got various FMS scrips against our exports and regularly were using these FMS licenses to pay the import duties while importing the material. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, from September 13 onwards, Customs IGI Air Port are denying to clear the consignments under the said FMS licenses and demanding the 30% duties of import as hard CASH and remaining 70% to be debited vide the said FMS license. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We are of the view that FMS license is admissible to pay the 100% of customs duties (whether it is BCD, Cess on BCD & SAD) by way of debiting the same under the FMS license. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Further, we wanted to put forward our contention to the Officer concerned in this regards so we tried to meet and tried to know their view in this-- </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I met with Deputy Commissioner of Customs clearance IGIAir Port in this regard. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per him, instructions from Finance ministry are given to the department for recovery of additional revenue, as there is a severe shortage of funds. Hence, all the shipments, which are being cleared under licenses, are required to have 30% duty submission in cash. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I explained to him that we already are paying more than 90% of duties in cash and only 10% duties are being covered under licenses. Hence a lenient view is to be granted to us. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">He, however, said that there are orders, which are being followed, and no exception shall be granted to anyone. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On asking for any written order / notification as a support, he told that these orders have not been passed as written, only verbal orders have been passed. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On again requesting him a lenient view, he said that we are free to meet his superiors in this regard. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I then approached Additional Commissioner of Customs who also echoed the same statements earlier presented by Deputy Commissioner. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">He also indicated that it might be possible that from December onwards, Consignees may have to pay 100 % duties in cash and no clearance may be done under FMS / FPS licenses. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On asking for any document / statement/ Notification for statutory backup for this demand, he also said that these orders are only verbal, not written. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I, however, presented a request letter to him which I was carrying in this regard and requested with him that we are already paying 90% of duties through cash and only 10% of the duties are being paid by licenses. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">He however said that he cannot do much in this context as the orders are from higher above. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And if he grants us permission to clear the shipments under license then other consignees shall also approach them for the same. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">He however put his signatures on the said letter and told us to approach Deputy Commissioner for this present shipment to be cleared under license. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As it was late in the evening and the Deputy Commissioner had left for the day, we presented the file again to the Deputy Commissioner on 26th September. He was busy in meetings the whole day and there were no developments. On 27th September, he was approached again with the file. However, we were again told that we have to pay 30% duty in cash without any exception. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">He is agitated that the Customs Department is collecting 30% of customs duties by way of hard cash without having any statutory backing behind this unjustified demand. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The next few months are going to be difficult for the assessees as the Department is going to use all means to meet their targets. </font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBEC Ombudsman Hrishikesh Sharan gets reprieve in Delhi High Court - Writ Withdrawn </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IT </strong>seems that Senior Advocate PrashantBhushan and ELT Editor RK Jain had written to the Prime Minister and other Authorities levelling charges of corruption and other malpractices against HrishikeshSharan, Chief Commissioner in CBEC who was tipped for appointment as Ombudsman at Mumbai. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">However the Government went ahead with the appointment and Sharan joined as Ombudsman in Mumbai on 31.10.2012. </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thereafter R K Jain filed a writ in the Delhi High Court for <em>Issue of a writ of quo-warranto or any other similar writ or direction against Sharan to remove him from the post of the Indirect Tax Ombudsman, Mumbai.</em></font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Delhi High Court last month dismissed the petition as withdrawn. </font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Adjudicating authority trying to impose condition, which does not exist </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>appellant is a manufacturer of water purification/filtration equipment. They were denied the benefit of Notification no. 6/2006-CE (Sl. No. 8-D) of the table annexed to the notification, which prescribed a concessional rate of duty of 4% ad valorem on the said goods without any condition attached thereto. However, a demand of Rs.32,47,188/- along with interest has been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that the appellant did not produce a certificate from the District Collector for availing the concessional rate of duty. The appeal against the same before the lower adjudicating authority was also rejected. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Before the CESTAT, the appellant submitted that the notification prescribes two rates of duty for the impugned goods, one, a "Nil" rate subject to production of the certificate from the District Collector and another of 4% which is without any condition and it is this entry that the appellant chose while clearing the goods. Since the adjudicating authority had misread the notification and imposed a condition which does not exist, the order is bad in law, the appellant submitted. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Bench referred to the relevant entry and observed that there is no condition prescribed against the said Serial no. 8-D and in the condition column, the entry is blank. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In fine, the CESTAT set aside the order and allowed the appeal. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can we have a better word than "harassment" for describing the above episode? Strangely, the Revenue representative instead of "fairly agreeing" to the submissions made by the appellant chose to reiterate the findings of the lower appellate authority. It's time, "costs' make an entry! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>See <font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=OTAyNTE=" target="_blank">2013-TIOL-1503-CESTAT-MUM</a></font></strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong><font color="#006600">DDT Cartoon </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/Cartoon_2208.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="451" hspace="5" border="0" align="center"></font></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"> - Monday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><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"></font><font color="#663399">Service Tax </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Spoken English Course - Liability to Service Tax - Appeal Dismissed: CESTAT </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>appellant is a Professor with a string of degrees namely, MA, LLB, DEPS, MTS [London]. He started an academy of English language in the year 1998. The faculty members include his family members who too are qualified and proficient in English language. There are many courses being conducted viz. Spoken English/Business English/Advanced Communication skills/IELTS Training etc. The fees vary from Rs.3000 to Rs.5500 per student depending upon the course. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In January, 2004, the Professor got himself registered with the Central Excise department for payment of Service Tax under the category "Commercial Coaching & Training Services". He paid a total Service Tax of Rs.1,40,180/- for the period from January 2004 to October, 2004. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Subsequently, in the month of November, 2004, he filed a refund claim on the ground that ‘Coaching in Spoken English' comes under the category of ‘Coaching in Foreign Languages' and is exempted from Service Tax vide Notification no. 9/2003-ST. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Income Tax </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether when holding company transfers its shares to wholly owned subsidiary at book value, same can be taxed under provisions of Gift Tax - YES: Madras High Court </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">THE</font></strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> issues before the Bench are - Whether holding and subsidiary company are different entities; Whether in case the facts are quite clear, there is any necessity of lifting the corporate veil and Whether when the holding company transfers its shares to its wholly owned subsidiary at book value, the same can be taxed under the provisions of Gift Tax. And the verdict goes against the assessee. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Central Excise </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Amount of 5%/10% paid by manufacturer in terms of rule 6 of CCR, 2004 is ‘recovered' from customers - Revenue taking a view that the said recovery should be treated as "additional consideration" and again the 5%/10% should be paid under rule 6 on the said amount - 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>appellant,a PSU, manufactures mechanical, electrical & electronic equipment.They also avail <em>CENVAT credit </em>and manufacture both dutiable and exempted final products but do not maintain separate accounts/inventory of inputs used for the aforesaid purpose. Therefore, in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 they were paying amount equal to 5%/10% of the sale value of the exempted final products at the time of their clearances. However, in the invoices to the customers, the amounts of 5%/10% of the sale price were being mentioned as " <em>CENVAT Credit </em>reversal", and these amounts were being recovered from their customers. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Department was of the view that the amount being recovered from the customers has to be treated as "additional consideration" for the goods sold and as such, the same would be part of the sale price. <em><font color="#FF0000">And that the manufacturer should pay 5%/10% on these amounts of 5%/10% collected! </font></em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CENVAT - Appellant manufacturing goods as well as providing output service - Credit availed on Input services utilized for payment of CX duty - once credit is admissible it forms part of common pool and manufacturer can utilize Credit for both, ST on output services or CX duty -Appeal allowed: CESTAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods as well as in providing taxable output services of 'Erection and Commissioning'. The applicants availed CENVAT credit of service tax on services like labour, erection, installation etc. which are in relation to providing output services. This credit has been utilized for the payment of Central Excise duty at the time of clearance of manufactured excisable goods. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is the contention of the Revenue that this <em><font color="#FF0000">cross utilization</font> </em>of CENVAT credit availed on Input services used for providing output services is not permissible. </font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong></strong></font></p>
<p align="left"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Resultantly, a demand notice was issued demanding CENVAT credit of Rs.1,28,02,575/- and the same was confirmed by the CCE, Pune-I along with imposition of penalty and interest. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Wishing You </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/DUSSERA.jpg" alt="" width="434" height="143" hspace="5" border="0" align="center"></font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>See our Columns Monday for the judgements </strong></font></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"><strong>Have a Nice Weekend. </strong></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>