TIOL-DDT 23 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div align="justify">
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <b><font color="#0000FF" size="3">TIOL-DDT
23</font><br>
3 1 2005<br>
Monday</b></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<b>Government rectifies amendment to dead notification but with another faux
paux </b></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>DDT</b>, on
31-12-2004, had pointed out that by notification no. <strong><a href="http://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=OTYxMA==" target="_blank">116/2004-Cus</a></strong>., dated
24-12-2004, government had amended a dead notification 83/2000. It was suggested
that the amendment was not required and the notification no. 116/2004 should
be withdrawn. We are happy to report that the good Board had reacted immediately
and tried to correct the mistake on 31-12-2004 itself by issuing a Corrigendum.
But we are sad to report the pathetic and shameful way the Corrigendum was
issued.<br>
<br>
Notification No. 116/2004 sought to amend para 3 of Notification No. 83/2000
with the words "27th day of December, 1999 to 25th day of June, 2005"
for the words "27th December, 1999". Now the corrigendum says
that in notification no. 116/2004 for Notification No. 83/2000 read
Notification No. 10/2001. The saddest part of this patch work of a
notification is that Notification No. 10/2001 does not have the words 29th
December, 1999 in para 3. For the benefit of the Board, DDT would like
to give the history of this notification.<br>
<br>
By Notification No. 134/99, dated 27th December, 1999 Anti-Dumping duty on
sodium cyanide was provisionally imposed. By Notification No. 83/2000, dated
6th June, 2000 this provisional anti-dumping duty was confirmed with effect
from the original date that is 27th December, 1999 and Notification No. 134/1999
was rescinded by Notification No. 84/2000. Notification No. 83/2000 had mentioned
the value for the purpose of the anti-dumping duty in rupee terms. The CEGAT
ordered that it has to be mentioned in US Dollar terms. Accepting the Tribunal
order, the government superseded Notification No. 83/2000 and issued Notification
No. 10/2001, dated 31-1-2001.<br>
<br>
As per Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, the anti-dumping duty shall
cease to have effect after the expiry of five years from the date of imposition
if not extended. The panic reaction in the Board must have been on the assumption
that Notification No. 83/2000 having effect from 29th December, 1999 will
cease to have effect from 29th December, 2004 and so a hurried notification
was issued on 24th December, 2004 to extend this sunset clause to 25th June,
2005. But apparently the notification makers of the Board had not realised
the fact that 83/2000 was superseded by Notification No. 10/2001 and this
10/2001 will have effect till 31-1-2006. There was absolutely no need for
the Board to panic and issue such a defective notification.<br>
<br>
It will be a good idea for the Board to undertake a study of all currently
valid notifications and circulars and instead of putting them in some file
which will be difficult to trace later, they should be uploaded to the Board's
website, so that every time there is a change you need not run around in search
of old files. You can simply download them from the site. TRU should undertake
this job immediately. If they can give soft copies of all the valid notifications,
Taxindiaonline will be happy to carry them in our site and update them regularly.<br>
<br>
<b>What is to be done now?</b><br>
<br>
Simple! Withdraw Notification No. 116/2004. See <a href="http://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2004/corrig116.htm">Corrigendum
in F.No. 354/166/99-TRU(Pt-III) dated 31-12-2004</a>.<br>
<br>
<font color="#006633"><b>Iron and steel products peak rates reduced :- (customs)</b></font><br>
<br>
By Notification No. 5/2004, dated 8-1-2004, the peak rate of customs duty
for most of the articles was fixed at 20%. Serial no. 343 of this notification
is for 7201 and 7202. Now this notification is amended by Notification No.
118/2004-Cus., dated 31-12-2004 to substitute "72" for 7201 and
7202 which means that 20% peak rate would now be applicable to the entire
chapter 72. It seems the intention of the Board was to reduce the Customs
Duty on seconds and defectives, of goods falling under chapter 72. See <a href="http://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2004/ctariff04_118.htm">Notification
No. 118/2004-Cus</a>., 31-12-2004<br>
<br>
<font color="#006633"><b>Government withdraws exemption on vegetables, fats
and oils:- (CE)</b></font><br>
<br>
As per Serial No. 245 of Notification No. <a href="http://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MzcxOA==" target="_blank"><strong>6/2002- Central Excise</strong></a>, all vegetable
fats and oils other than vanaspati and bakery shortenings were exempted. Now
this Serial No. 245 is amended so that all goods falling under heading No.
1504 (except vanaspati and bakery shortenings manufactured out of duty paid
vanaspati and bakery shortenings) will attract a duty of Rs. 1.25 for kilogram.
See <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=29&filename=notification/excise/2004/etariff04_056.htm">Notification
No. 56/2004-Central Excise, dated 31-12-2004.</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<font color="#006633"><b>Exemption for Paper and Paper Board (CE) :</b></font>
The paper manufactured by Nagaon Paper Mill or Cachar Paper Mill of Hindustan
Paper Corporation granted a small exemption. The exemption is the rate in
the first schedule minus 50% of the duties of excise. See <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=29&filename=notification/excise/2004/etariff04_057.htm">Notification
No. 57/2004-Central Excise, dated 31-12-2004.</a><br>
<br>
<b>Government notifies services where the tax is to be paid by other than
persons providing service. The GTA confusions continues.</b><br>
<br>
Confusion created by imposition of service tax on GTA to be collected from
the recipients of the service is too well known to repeat but a quick recap
is worthwhile. When the government first tried to collect service tax from
the recipients of services instead of service providers, the Supreme Court
struck down the rule holding that there was no provision in the Act to collect
tax from the recipients. The government quickly changed the Act in 1998. Where
Section 68 of the Finance Act 1994 was substituted. The Section 68(2) allowed
the government to notify services in respect of which the tax can be collected
from persons other than the service provider. And the government had introduced
in the Service Tax Rules, Rule 2, a definition for "person liable for
paying service tax" and under this definition mostly recipients are
liable to pay. But this definition, in the Service Tax Rules, was not full
compliance of the requirement under Section 68(2). Which required the services
to be first notified and then the persons liable to pay later. It is strange
that for last 6 years the services were not notified. It is heartening that
as the year came to a close, on 31st December, 2004 the government has come
up with the notification notifying the services to which Section 68(2) applies.-
See <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=40&filename=notification/servicetax/2004/stnot04_036.htm">Notification
No. 36/2004-Service Tax, 31-12-2004.</a><br>
<br>
<font color="#006633"><b>Anti-Dumping duty imposed on acrylic fibre originating
in or exported from Belarus.</b></font> - See <a href="http://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2004/ctariff04_117.htm">Notification
No. 117/2004-Cus</a>., 30-12-2004<br>
<br>
<font color="#006633"><b>DGFT announces new DEPB rates and value cap for Textile
Articles in a sexy Public Notice.</b></font><br>
<br>
The product covers one piece of garment for the female covering the top of
the body and extending from somewhere from the mid-thigh to feet. It is appropriate
to wear without other garments and its lower end encloses both the legs in
a single tube (rather than two, as trousers do).<br>
<br>
Any idea what this product is all about. DDT asked several people, including
some girls as to what this dress is. Some said it is a skirt, others said
it must be a lungi worn by women; some said it must be a strange outfit for
a space odyssey. One persons wondered what difference it makes whether both
the legs go into one tube or two. Just look at the conditions required for
this strange product.</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. It should be a garment for the female.<br>
2. It should essentially cover the top of her
body.<br>
3. It should extent to at least somewhere near
the mid thigh.<br>
4. It can go up to the feet.<br>
5. The lower end should be a tube enclosing
both the legs.<br>
6. It is a single piece garment<br>
7. It is <b>appropriate</b> to wear this without
other garments - under or over.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DDT is not trying to make this column interesting by describing a sexy feminine
dress. This is the Note 1 for "Item Numbers 25A, B & C - Ladies
Dress" of the table to the DGFT's Public Notice announcing the
new DEPB rates. It is not known whether the customs will ensure these requirements
while allowing the export and whether they are going to insist on a sample
thigh being produced to know whether the dress conforms to the requirement
that it extends to somewhere near the mid thigh. While the list includes more
than a hundred items it is not known why the DGFT wanted to define only ladies
dress. DGFT would have come out with juicy definitions for blouses, blouson,
ladies panty, night gowns, socks/stockings (how high in the leg will it extend
to), ladies night wears, ladies shorts, ladies skirts etc., These are all
products figuring in the Public Notice. - <a href="pdfnoti/pdfdgft/pdf2004/dgft04pub039.pdf">See
DGFT Public Notice No. 39/2004-2009</a>.<br>
<br>
<font color="#FF0000"><b>Until tomorrow with more of DDT </b></font></font></p>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><b><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have
a Nice Day</font></b><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font> </p>
</div>
</body>
</html>