TIOL-DDT 2269 · 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 size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><font color="#006600"><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><img width="115" height="125" border="0" align="right" src="image/ddt/10yearsDDT.jpg" alt="" /></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></font></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><font color="#006600"><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=17063"><img width="175" hspace="5" height="120" border="0" align="right" src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/limca_book2013.jpg" alt="DDT in Limca Book of Records" /></a></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></font></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 2269 </font><br> </strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>09.01.2014 <br> Thursday </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Amendment to CENVAT Credit Rules - Rectification of Mistakes </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>GOVERNMENT</strong> has amended Rule 3 the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - basically to correct certain mistakes. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per Rule 3(5), when inputs or capital goods are removed as such, an amount equal to the credit availed has to be paid back. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per Rule 3(5A), when capital goods are removed after use, a depreciated credit amount has to be paid back. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per Rule 3(5B), credit taken on the written off inputs has to be paid back. This sub rule also has an explanation that if the amount required to be paid under sub rules 5, 5A and 5B is not paid, recovery shall be made as per Rule 14. <font color="#FF0000">Now this explanation is not proper here; it should have been after rule 5C. (So it is now replaced and put in its rightful place) </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per Rule 3(5C), if duty on final product is remitted under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the CENVAT credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of those goods has to be reversed. This sub-rule does not mention <em>the <strong>input services </strong> used in the manufacture of the goods on which duty remission is granted.</em> <font color="#FF0000">This is now rectified. <em>The CENVAT credit taken on input services used in or in relation to the manufacture or production of said goods </em> also has to reversed. </font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">These sub-rules also do not specify the date on which the payments are to be made - whether the payment is to be made on the date of removal of the inputs as such (etc.) or by the 5th of the next month. This lapse is also now rectified. An explanation is added that the payment under Sub-rules 5, 5A, 5B and 5C shall be paid on or before the 5th of the following month except for the month of March. It is also made explicitly clear that the payment can be made by debit entry in the CENVAT account. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Since the Explanation under rule 3(5B) has been omitted, another Explanation numbered 2 is added below sub-rule 5C to prescribe that in the event of failure to pay the amount payable under sub-rules (5), (5A), (5B) and (5C), it shall be recovered, in the manner as provided in rule 14, for recovery of CENVAT credit wrongly taken and utilised. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2014/exnt14_01.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Notification No. 01/2014-CX., (N.T.), Dated: January 08, 2014 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Removal of inputs/capital goods as such - when to pay the amount of CENVAT Credit? </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>WHEN </strong>the inputs/capital goods are removed as such, an amount equal to the credit availed, has to be paid back. When is this amount to be paid? Is it on the date of removal of inputs/capital goods or like other duty payments, by the 5th of the following month? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is it a big issue? You may not think so, but Commissioners take these issues seriously and some Commissioners have taken the issue to the CESTAT. Let us see some cases. </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. <strong><em>CCE, Raigad v Savita Polymers </em></strong> - <em><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=34&filename=legal/cestat/2006/2006-TIOL-1463-CESTAT-MUM.htm"><strong><font size="1">2006-TIOL-1463-CESTAT-MUM</font></strong> </a></em>: In this case, the Commissioner took the matter in appeal to the CESTAT on the ground that the assessee had availed CENVAT credit on inputs/capital goods and cleared the said inputs/capital goods as such and had not paid the duty at the time of removal as required but debited the duty on monthly basis i.e on 5 th of the following months from April 2002 to March, 2002 which has resulted in delay of payment of duty and loss of interest to the extent of Rs. <strong>24,189 </strong>/-. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue appeal, but imagine the amount of time and money wasted. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. <strong><em>CCE, Mumbai III v Paper Products </em></strong> - <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=34&filename=legal/cestat/2007/2007-TIOL-1346-CESTAT-MUM.htm"><strong><font size="1"><em>2007-TIOL-1346-CESTAT-MUM</em></font></strong> </a>: This was a similar case in which following the Savita Polymers decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue appeal. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. <strong><em>CCE, Raigad v Cadila Healthcare </em></strong> - <em><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=34&filename=legal/cestat/2007/2007-TIOL-300-CESTAT-MUM.htm"><strong><font size="1">2007-TIOL-300-CESTAT-MUM</font></strong> </a></em>: In this case also, following <em>Savita </em>, the Revenue appeal was rejected. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. <strong><em>Apar Industries v CCE, Mumbai </em></strong> - <em><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=34&filename=legal/cestat/2008/2008-TIOL-87-CESTAT-MUM.htm"><strong><font size="1">2008-TIOL-87-CESTAT-MUM</font></strong> </a></em>: In this case, the Adjudicating Authority held that facility of fortnightly payment is not for the input/capital goods cleared as such and is only for the payment of duty on the finished goods. On these findings, he confirmed the demand of interest and imposed penalty. Based on the above rulings, CESTAT dismissed the Revenue appeal in this case also. </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The height of Revenue ridicule could be seen in <strong><em>KLRF Textiles v CCE, Tirunelveli </em></strong> - <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=34&filename=legal/cestat/2005/2005-TIOL-937-CESTAT-MAD.htm"><strong><font size="1"><em>2005-TIOL-937-CESTAT-MAD</em></font></strong> </a>: In this case, the Adjudicating Authority imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC, which was reduced by the Commissioner(A). The Commissioner was aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner (A) reducing the penalty and appealed to the Tribunal for a princely amount of Rs. 1,32,356/-. The Tribunal held that no penalty was liable to be imposed. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, after all these years, the Government has amended the Rules to stipulate that the amount can be paid by the 5th of the following month. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, rule 8 of the CER, 2002 [Manner of payment] was amended by notification 8/2007-CE(NT) dated 01/03/2007 and the following explanation was added to cater to such "amount payments" under CCR, 2004. It reads - </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Explanation.- For the purposes of this rule, the expressions 'duty' or 'duty of excise' shall also include the amount payable in terms of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.". </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Probably, this too fell short in addressing the specific issues concerning rule 3 of the CCR, 2004 and so an explicit "Explanation 1" has been now added in this rule. </font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>FTP - import of customized Cars/Motorcycles for race events </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>A </strong>new Policy Condition No. 10 is added to Chapter 87 of ITC (HS), 2012 Schedule 1 (Import Policy): </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. At the time of Customs clearance, a Type Approval Certificate/COP of an international accredited agency from the country of origin will not be required. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. A certificate from Nodal Agency (to be nominated by Govt. of India) indicating the details of the vehicle shall be required at the time of Customs clearance. Import shall be permitted only through such Customs ports as per Policy Condition (1) (II) (d) (iv). </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. These vehicles will be used only for the purpose for which these are imported.Vehicles imported under this provision will not be registered CMV Act/ Rules; nor be alienated/ sold to any individual/organization/institution etc. anywhere in India. These vehicles shall not ply on public roads and can only be used within the enclosed premises with requisite safety precautions and will not be engaged in any sort of commercial activities. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. The importer shall be required to execute a Bond with Customs with adequate security/ surety to re-export the vehicle(s) within 30 days of the completion of the event or within such extended period as the appropriate officer may allow after being shown a reasonable cause. </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2013/dgft13not065.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT Notification No. 65/(RE-2013)/2009-2014, Dated: January 08, 2014 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>FDI - EDI Procedure for claiming benefits in respect of Third Party exports </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT</strong> has introduced two new Paragraphs 9.14 & 9.15 in the Handbook of Procedures (Vol. I) 2009-14 for claiming benefit of Third Party exports under EDI system and for conversion of currencies into USD with immediate effect:- </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>9.14 </strong><em>For claiming benefits under EDI system in respect of Third Party exports the process will be initiated by the First party who will link shipping bills and BRCs to repository. If the First Party chooses not to claim benefit for a particular shipping bill item/s, it may authorize Third Party to claim benefit for such shipping bill item/s. After such authorization by First party, Third Party will be able to utilize the shipping bill item/s in its application.</em> </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><em>9.15 (a) Currencies, where Exchange rates are notified by CBEC </em></strong></font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>The foreign exchange realized (as mentioned by bank in the eBRC) is converted to Indian Rupee (INR) using the monthly exchange rates published by CBEC. </em></font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>(b) Currencies, where Exchange rates are not notified by CBEC </strong></font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>In such cases, total realized value in INR (as mentioned by bank in the eBRC), will be converted into USD by using the USD /INR exchange rate prevailing on the date of realization as published by CBEC. </em></font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=47&filename=notification/dgft/2013/dgft13pn046.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT Public Notice No. 46/2009-2014 (RE- 2013), Dated: January 08, 2014 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>FTP - Processing of claims where an exporter gets payment by Insurance Agencies (not through banks). </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT </strong>has introduced two new Paragraphs 2.25.2 (a) & (b) in the Handbook of Procedures (Vol. I) 2009-14 for prescribing a procedure for processing of claims in respect of realization of export proceeds through insurance agency:- </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>2.25.2 (a) An applicant realizing export proceeds through Insurance Agency will approach the concerned RA with the proof of payment issued by the concerned Insurance Agency. RA after satisfying itself of the bona fide of the claim, will obtain approval of Additional DGFT (EDI) and then will upload the value (in lieu of eBRC value) in EDI system of DGFT for processing of the case. </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>(b) If the proof of payment issued by the Insurance Agency mentions claim value both in foreign exchange and INR, RA will use the foreign exchange value for processing. If the claim value is mentioned only in equivalent INR, RA will convert this INR value in equivalent USD using the exchange rate (published by CBEC) applicable on the date of settlement of insurance claim.</em> </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=47&filename=notification/dgft/2013/dgft13pn047.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT Public Notice No. 47/2009-2014 (RE- 2013), Dated: January 08, 2014 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Commissioner (A) dismissing appeal on ground of non-submission of COD application - as last date for filing appeal was Saturday, appeal filed on Monday, the next working day - matter remanded </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>applicant is before the CESTAT against the order of the Commissioner(A) dismissing their appeal on the ground of non-submission of application for condonation of alleged delay of two days. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is submitted that the entire duty along with interest and penalty of 25% has been paid by the applicant and that there was no delay in filing the appeal inasmuch as the last date for filing the appeal was Saturday ( <em>a holiday </em>) and, therefore, they filed the appeal on the next working day i.e Monday. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Bench observed - </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>"4. We find that the ld. Commissioner has not discussed the merit of the case but dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of two days in filing the appeal before him. From the submission of the Ld. Advocate, prima facie we find that if due date was Saturday, and the appeal was filed on Monday then there was no delay. However, these facts are need to be scrutinized and verified."</em></font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In fine, the CESTAT set aside the order of the lower appellate authority and remanded the matter for reconsideration of all the issues. It was also mentioned that in the event there is a delay in filing the appeal, the applicant may be allowed to file proper application for condonation. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The stay petition was disposed of. </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=OTE0OTI=" target="_blank">2014-TIOL-47-CESTAT-MUM</a></font></strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>The Week after VCES - 50% not paid - Assessee arrested </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IN</strong> one of the first post-VCES actions, the Surat Service Tax Department is reported to have arrested an assesse who failed to pay 50% of the declared tax dues of Rs. 7.82 Crores under VCES. The accused has been sent to judicial custody till January 21. </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"> – Friday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><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"><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">Central Excise </font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Subsequent reduction in prices by passing on higher discounts to the customers after clearance of the goods cannot alter the excise duty liability - refund claim rejected - Revenue appeals allowed: CESTAT </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>M/S </strong>Videocon are manufacturers of Colour TVs and sell the same from their sales depots situated at various places. The assessee had filed price declarations under Rule 173C of the CER, 1944, declaring therein the assessable value of the goods cleared to its various depots from where the goods were sold to the dealers. At the time of finalization of its account for the year 1996-97,it was noticed that the assessee had claimed less deduction on account of the discounts passed on its dealers, whereas it had actually passed on higher amount of discounts than those declared in the declarations filed with the department. Hence a revised price declaration was filed by the assessee on 17/06/97 claiming higher discounts retrospectively, i.e. with effect from October 1996 onwards. Consequently, the assessee filed 9 refund claims. </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 Sec 54F benefit is not available merely because assessee had initiated construction of house property before sale of shares - NO: Delhi HC </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> assessee, an individual, had sold shares and the sale proceeds of Rs.54,86,965/- were invested in construction of house property. Exemption was claimed u/s 54F in the return of income filed for AY 2009-10. Amount of Rs.37,99,000/- was utilised in the construction before date of filing of return and Rs.16,87,965/- was deposited in a capital gains account in the prescribed bank before the due date of filing of the return. During assessment, AO rejected the claim for benefit u/s 54F on two grounds. Firstly, AO held that the construction of the house had commenced before the date of sale of shares and secondly, the construction was not completed within three years after the date of said sale. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The issue before the Bench is - Whether Sec 54F benefit is not available merely because assessee had initiated construction of house property before sale of shares. And the answer 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">Appellant taking registration but not paying Service tax and not filing returns - three years later they started paying ST for the period 2002 onwards on suomotu basis with interest - imposition of penalties u/s 76 & 77 justified: CESTAT </font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> appellant had obtained registration as a service provider on 28.11.2003. Due to unavoidable circumstances, they could not pay ST on the due dates but they started paying the service tax <em>suomotu </em>from December, 2005 with interest. In the present case, investigation started on 16.06.2006 and the SCN was issued on 23.4.2008. Inasmuch as since they started paying ST along with interest <em>suomotu </em> there is no intention on the part of the appellant to evade service tax, submitted the appellant. They also informed that even though after August 2006 they had paid ST on due dates, the adjudicating authority had not considered the same; that their computer had crashed and the CA had neither recovered the ST nor paid the same. They seek invocation of section 80 of the FA, 1994 for waiver of penalty. </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 size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6666">Until Tomorrow with more DDT </font></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Have a nice day. </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>