TIOL-DDT 2229 · 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"><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 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></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">TIOL-DDT 2229 </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br> </font></strong><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>12.11.2013 <br> Tuesday</strong></font></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Petition in Supreme Court Against 'Your Lordship' 'My Lord' </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>A</strong> practising advocate of the Supreme Court has filed a PIL in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to do away with the practice of addressing judges as "Your Lordship" and "My Lord". The Petitioner pleads that the use of "Your Lordship" and "My Lord" to address judges are relics of British colonial past and amounted to a "disgrace and dishonour of the country". </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">He prayed for a writ of Mandamus, "directing all judges of the Supreme Court, High Courts and other Judicial Forums not to accept the word[s] My Lord or Your Lordship addressed by anyone appearing before them."</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The matter came up for hearing yesterday before a Bench of the CJI and Justice Ranjan Gogoi. The petitioner said that another bench in which Justice Gogoi was a Member dismissed his case because he did not address the court as "Your Lordship". Justice Gogoi said he would not hear the matter and so the case is listed before another bench. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The eminent lawyer Fali Nariman mentions in his fascinating autobiography 'Before Memory fades…' </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>"… a city court judge and a district judge must be addressed as 'Your Honour', and (most important of all) a high court judge must always be addressed as 'Your Lordships' (believe me, the judges simply love it). Years ago, I appeared before a judge who had just been' elevated' from the city civil court to the high court, and was particular about how he should hence forth be addressed. My opponent who had appeared before him in the adjoining building, the city civil and sessions court, imagined he was still addressing a city court judge and went on calling him' Your Honour'. The judge grimaced at this indignity. My opponent had a good case. But he lost! Judges are human " </em></font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are many advocates nowadays addressing Commissioners as "my lord" - and perhaps that helps. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then how do you address a lady judge - 'my lord' doesn't really suit - but is it okay to call her, "my lady"? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Even judges call the Chief justices and judges of the Supreme Court as 'my lord' and 'your lordship' even in private conversation. And sometimes they call even the brother judge sitting in the same bench as 'his lordship'. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I used to correspond with a retired High Court judge and I used to address him 'My lord' and he used to address me 'Mr. Vijay Kumar'. I told him, 'you can call me Vijay'. He replied, 'if Vijay is in, My Lord is out'.</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>VCES - No Advantage in not paying tax - FM </strong> </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/VCES_FM.jpg" alt="" width="229" height="260" hspace="5" border="0" align="left"></font>THE</strong> FM addressed the second of his road shows on VCES at New Delhi yesterday. He noted that Delhi, which collects about 20 percent of India's Service Tax, got just 506 VCES applications out of the total 5000 applications. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The FM's concern is that there are 17 lakh registered assessees, but only 7 lakh are filing returns. He wants to get the balance 10 lakh assessees back into the fold. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Board should explain to the FM that all non-filers are not evaders. We had explained in <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=18235" target="_blank"><strong>DDT - 2152 19.07.2013</strong> </a> that all non filers are not really Service Tax assessees. We had also suggested another VCES - Voluntary Cancellation Encouragement Scheme, under which the registrations of those who are not under Service Tax may be cancelled. No registered assessee would approach the department for cancellation, because cancellation of registration is more difficult than registration itself. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The real evaders have not registered with the Department - the Department should try to get them into the Service Tax net. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The FM said, "<em>We have a lot more information. We have permanent account numbers. We are receiving data from other sources. We have a Financial Intelligence Unit. We have a dedicated group of individuals putting all the information together to profile an individual... No advantage in not paying tax, but there is great advantage in paying tax</em>"</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Already 5000 applications are received under VCES; we just need another 9,95,000 to reach the FM's target. </font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Anti Dumping Duty on Acrylic Fibre - Extended </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>anti dumping duty on Acrylic Fibre, falling under chapter 55 of the First Schedule, originating in, or exported from, Korea RP and Thailand imposed vide Notification No. 123 /2008-Customs, dated the 20th November, 2008, is now extended till 19th November 2014. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This would have expired on 19th November 2013 and this time, the Government could wake up in time to extend the validity of the notification before its death. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=337&filename=notification/custom/2013/ctariffadd13_027.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Notification No. 27/2013-CUS (ADD), Dated: November 08, 2013 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>FTP - Allocation of 10,000 MTs of white sugar for year 2013-14 for Export to EU </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT</strong> has allocated a quantity of 10,000 MTs (Ten thousand metric tonnes) of white Sugar for export of CXL Concessions Sugar to European Union (EU) for the period October 2013 to September 2014. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=47&filename=notification/dgft/2013/dgft13pn036.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT Public Notice No.36 (RE-2013)/2009-2014, Dated: November 11, 2013 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>FTP - Exemption from requirement of NOC for export of Kerosene and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd to Nepal & Bhutan</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</STRONG> has re-notified Chapter 27 of Schedule 2 of ITC(HS) Classification of Export and Import Items. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Export of Kerosene and LPG to Nepal & Bhutan by Indian Oil Corporation has been exempted from the requirement of NOC from Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2013/dgft13not050.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT Notification No.50 (RE-2013)/2009-2014, Dated: November 11, 2013 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Muharram Holiday on Friday </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Holiday on the occasion of Muharram was listed on Thursday the 14 November 2013. This was dependent on sighting of the Moon. It has been decided that for offices in Delhi / New Delhi, the Holiday on the occasion of Muharram will now be on Friday, the 15 November, 2013 and all Central Government Administrative offices located in Delhi / New Delhi shall remain closed on account of Muharram on 15th November, 2013. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=70&filename=pitara/oms/office_memo_muharram.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DOPT Office Memorandum F. No. 12/10/2013-JCA-2, Dated: November 11, 2013 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>VAT on Service Tax </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IT</strong> seems that the Enforcement department of the Andhra Pradesh Government has found that the hotels and restaurants in Hyderabad had collected Rs. 2.48 crore as excess VAT from unsuspecting customers. It is said that VAT of 14.5 percent is to be paid only on the Food and Beverages Charges while the restaurants were collecting VAT on F&B charges + Service Tax + service charges. This may be a practice followed in other cities too. Check your bill before you pay. </font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Issue which was not argued at time of hearing cannot be heard by filing a ROM </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>applicant filed a ROM application on the ground that in the interest of justice, on the issue of revenue neutrality, the appeal should be re-heard.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Bench noted that after hearing the appellant, the order was dictated in the Court in the presence of the CA and all the issues raised during the arguments were considered while passing the order. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Inasmuch as since the appellant was seeking review of the order on the ground that they want to argue the issue which was not argued at the time of hearing of the appeal, the same could not be considered as a mistake apparent on record, the CESTAT held.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In fine, the ROM application was dismissed.</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=OTA2NzA=" target="_blank">2013-TIOL-1689-CESTAT-MUM</a></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/probation.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="322" 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"> - Wednesday'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></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Service Tax </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBEC informing appellant vide letter dated 24/02/2009 that they are not liable to Service Tax - Board reviewing its decision on 20/09/2011 and conveying that appellant is providing taxable service - Demands of ST issued for the period from 01/05/2006 to 30/09/2011 in view of latter communication - since CBEC had conveyed in February 2009 that appellant is not liable to ST,<em> prima facie</em>, applicant has strong case in favour - Pre-deposit waived and stay granted: CESTAT </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> <em>CCE&ST (LTU), Mumbai </em> confirmed two humongous Service Tax demands of Rs.2075.64 Crores and Rs.283.15 Crores respectively and imposed penalties and interest. The applicants had approached the CBEC for exemption from service tax and that the Board denied the exemption. However, on subsequent representation, vide letter dated 24.02.2009, the Board conveyed that the applicants are not performing the taxable service of General Insurance but is performing the function of a watchdog and guarantor of banking activities by any bank operating in India. It is also conveyed that the charges collected by the applicants are not taxable under the taxable service of General Insurance Business. That, subsequently vide letter dated 20.09.2011, the Board reviewed its earlier decision and decided that the activity undertaken by the applicants fall within the ambit of Sec.65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the applicants are liable to pay service tax as provider of General Insurance Business Service. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Customs </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whatever be goods- alloy or non-alloy steel, after using same, final products have been exported and export obligation is 100% completed; there is no allegation of diversion of goods imported duty free or mis-utilisation - CC, Kandla confirming 860 Crore demand with equivalent penalty - <em>Prima facie </em>case in favourof appellant - Stay granted: CESTAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Commissioner of Customs, Kandla has vide his order dated 19/04/2013 confirmed the demand of customs duty of Rs.860crores along with interest and an equivalent penalty. Personal penalties have also been imposed on co-noticees. The ground for confirmation - that the goods imported are "Alloy Steel" falling under Tariff Heading 72.25 by virtue of Chapter Note 1(f) of Chapter 72 of Customs Tariff whereas the Advance Licences, against which goods were imported, were issued for duty free import of Non-Alloy Steel. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements</strong></font></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>