TIOL-DDT 2591 · 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 color="#663399" size="3"><s><strong><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 color="#663399" size="3"><s><strong><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 color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=23157"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/limca_book2015_1.jpg" alt="DDT in Limca Book of Records - Third Time in a row" width="300" height="148" hspace="5" border="0" align="right" ></a></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></s></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></s></font></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 2591</font><br> 06 05 2015 <br> Wednesday </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font size="3"><strong><em><font color="#006600" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dealer Registration NOT mandatory for transit sale - CBEC Clarifies </font></em></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>Board has really acted with lightning speed. It was only yesterday that DDT had covered about a dangerous clarification given by a Chief Commissioner that dealers have to mandatorily take registration.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Government's amendments to Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, though were meant to facilitate were taken as regulatory by the field officers and the bull really had a run through the China shop. An assessee informed that business virtually came to a halt for the last 45 days or so. Interpretative skills of the bureaucrats can create havoc. Yesterday Mr.Veerappy Moily said in the Lok Sabha, "<em>this country has become a curse of bureaucracy</em>".</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By Notification No. 8/2015-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1st March 2015, the following proviso was added to Rule 11(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Provided also that if the goods are sent directly to any person on the direction of the <font color="#FF0000"><strong>Registered </strong></font>dealer, the invoice shall also contain the details of the registered dealer as the buyer and person as the consignee, and that person shall take Cenvat credit on the basis of the registered dealer's invoice". </font></em></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And this is what created the panic as some field officers insisted that dealers have to get registered mandatorily. They insisted that CENVAT credit <font color="#FF0000">will</font> not be allowed on the strength of Manufacturer's invoice when the goods are sold through a non-registered dealer. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A colleague of mine told me, "the manufacturer's invoice is like a DD, the dealer's invoice is like a cheque - they want to reject the DD and accept a cheque" </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yesterday, DDT wrote, </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">It is high time that the CBEC intervenes and comes out with a clarification lest this issue should snowball into a major controversy which will, in the final run, not fetch any revenue to the government but certainly assist Consultants and Advocates laugh all the way to the bank. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">Was the amendment beneficial or was it one more method of harassing the assessees? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">If this is called "Ease of doing business", so be it….. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And we are elated - by evening, Board came up with a clarification; And what a super clarification!. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board clarifies:</font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) Where a registered dealer negotiates sale of an entire consignment from a manufacturer or a registered importer and orders direct transport of goods to the consignee, credit can be availed by the <font color="#FF0000">consignee on the basis of invoice issued by the manufacturer</font> or the registered importer. In such cases no Cenvatable invoice shall be issued by the registered dealer in favour of the consignee though commercial invoice can be issued. Where a registered dealer negotiates sale of goods from the total stock ordered on a manufacturer or an importer to multiple buyers and orders direct transportation of goods to the consignees and the manufacturer or the importer is willing to issue individual invoices for each sale in favour of the consignees for such individual sale, the same procedure shall apply. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) Where a registered dealer negotiates sale by splitting a consignment procured from a manufacturer or a registered importer and issues Cenvatable invoices for each of the sale, it would now be possible for the dealer to order direct transport of the consignments as per the individual sales to the consignee without bringing the goods to his godown. This would save time and transportation cost for the dealer adding to ease of doing business. This is a new facility which flows from the amended provisions. Procedure as prescribed in the third proviso of rule 11(2) shall be applicable in such case. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iii) Where a un-registered dealer negotiates sale of an entire consignment from a manufacturer or a registered importer and orders direct transport of goods to the consignee, credit can be availed by the consignee on the basis of invoice issued by the manufacturer or the registered importer. As the dealer is not registered, there is no question of issuing any Cenvatable invoice by him. Such dealers as in the past can continue to be un-registered. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iv) Where goods are sold by the registered importer to an end-user (say a manufacturer) who would avail credit on the basis of importer's invoice and the goods are transported directly from the port or warehouse at the port to the buyer's premises, the amendment prescribes that for such movement the factum of such direct transport to the buyer's premises needs to be recorded in the invoice. </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Board clarification not only addresses the crux of the issues, but also has granted additional benefits like direct transport in case of split consignments. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Finally the Board explains that <em>the new provisos are meant to<strong> improve the ease of doing business</strong> by providing an additional facility to the registered dealer or importer for direct dispatch of goods from the manufacturer to the consignee, when he is issuing Cenvatable invoice,. <strong>They do not withdraw any past facility</strong>. These amendments should therefore be harmoniously interpreted with the existing rules and circulars in conformity with the legal provisions, keeping the intention of the Government in mind. </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is real governance and this is perhaps what the Prime Minister has been trying to tell the bureaucrats. This visible change in the attitude of the Board should go a long way in the cause of ease of doing business. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As the businessmen heave a sigh of relief, we loudly proclaim - THANK YOU CBEC. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please also see </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. yesterday's <strong>DDT</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. <strong>DDT 2584</strong> under the caption - <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=23448" target="_blank"><strong><em>CBEC - Please Listen; Please spare us of 'registration' - Rule 11 of CER, 2002</em></strong></a>. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=23366" target="_blank"><strong>Is CENVAT credit on transit sale allowed only if made through Registered dealer?</strong> </a></font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTgwMjA=" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC Circular No. 1003/10/2015-CX, Dated: May 05, 2015 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><em><font color="#006600">Will TRU wake up? - Credit of Education Cess</font></em></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>WHILE </strong>heaping praise on one section of the Board, DDT is compelled to remind another Section, TRU about their faux pas in the recent amendments to CENVAT Credit Rules. By Notification No. 12/2015 - CENT dated 30.04.2015, the Government has amended the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to stipulate that: </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1.<em> the credit of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess paid on inputs or capital goods received in the factory of manufacture of final product on or after the 1st day of March, 2015 can be utilized for payment of the duty of excise. </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. the credit of balance fifty per cent. Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess paid on capital goods received in the factory of manufacture of final product in the financial year 2014-15 can be utilized for payment of the duty of excise.</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. the credit of Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess paid on input services received by the manufacturer of final product on or after the 1st day of March, 2015 can be utilized for payment of the duty of excise</font></em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">. </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DDT had immediately commented: </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">What about the balance of CENVAT credit of education cess lying in CENVAT account as on 28.02.2015? The amendment to CENVAT Credit Rules allows credit on inputs/input services received on or after 01.03.2015, but it does not provide solution to the balance of credit as on 28.02.2015. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">What if someone had already received the inputs/input services before 28.02.2015, but did not take credit of education cess? Should he lose that? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">In case of capital goods, it is not mandatory that the balance 50% should be taken only in the immediate next financial year. Then, why they allowed the credit only to the capital goods received in 2014-15, but not before that? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">Why can't they make a simple amendment without creating any fresh problems? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We are still waiting for the clarification/amendment from the Board (read TRU) </font></p> <p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><em><font color="#006600">Anti-dumping Duty on Polytetrafluoroethylene Extended </font></em></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>BASED </strong>on the recommendations of the Designated Authority's recommendations, the Central Government has decided to extend anti-dumping duty on ‘Polytetrafluoroethylene(PTFE)', falling under Chapter 3904 61 00 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 originating in, or exported from, Russia, imposed vide notification No. 57/2010-CUSTOMS, dated the 3rd May, 2010. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Notification was to expire on 03.05.2015 and the Government extended it just before the expiry. Congratulations. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTgwMTk=" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 17/2015-Cus (ADD), Dated: May 01, 2015</font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><font size="3"><strong><em><font color="#006600" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Exchange Rate changed </font></em></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Central government has notified new exchange rates in respect of the foreign currency viz. Swiss Franc for imported goods and for export goods, from today. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTgwMjI=" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification 43/2015-Cus(NT), Dated: May 05, 2015 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><em><font color="#006600">FTP - Deferment in date of effect of procedure for export of certified organic products </font></em></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>procedure for export of certified organic products notified vide <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTcyNzg=" target="_blank"><strong>Public Notice No. 73 (RE-2013)/2009-2014</strong> </a>dated 18.11.2014 became effective from the date of issue of public notice i.e. 18.11.2014. (Please see <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MjIwMDU=" target="_blank"><strong>DDT 2478-19.11.2014</strong></a>) </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It was decided to grant some transition time to make the <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTcyNzg=" target="_blank"><strong>Public Notice No. 73 (RE-2013)/2009-2014</strong> </a>dated 18.11.2014 effective. Accordingly, the procedure notified vide <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTcyNzg=" target="_blank"><strong>Public Notice No. 73 (RE-2013)/2009-2014</strong> </a>dated 18.11.2014 was to come into effect from 18/12/2014. (<strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTczMTM=" target="_blank">DGFT Public Notice No. 77 (RE-2013)/2009-2014, Dated: December 01, 2014</a></strong>) </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But on 18/12/2014, the DGFT deferred the implementation indefinitely - till further orders.[<strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTczNTg=" target="_blank">Public Notice No. 78 (RE-2013)/2009-2014</a> </strong>dated 18.12.2014.] </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now the procedure notified vide <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTcyNzg=" target="_blank"><strong>Public Notice No. 73 (RE-2013)/2009-2014</strong> </a>dated 18.11.2014 for export of Certified Organic Products, except Textiles, would come into effect from 01.06.2015. </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTgwMjE=" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT Public Notice No.10/2015-20, Dated: May 05, 2015 </font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><font size="3"><strong><em><font color="#006600" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">LPG Subsidy not to be taxed - CBDT clarifies </font></em></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CERTAIN </strong>doubts have been raised in a section of the media (including DDT) about the applicability of the official amendment moved in the Finance Bill, 2015 in the Lok Sabha on 30th April, 2015 with respect to definition of ‘income'. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBDT clarifies:</font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sub-section (2) of section 145 provides that the Central Government may notify Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) for any class of assessees or for any class of income. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (‘CBDT') notified ICDS on 31.3.2015 vide Notification number S.O. 892 (E) after wide consultations with the stakeholders for which the draft was placed in the public domain. The ICDS is applicable to persons having income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" or "Income from other sources" and following Mercantile System of Accounting. This is not applicable to individuals not having any income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" and receiving LPG subsidy or any other subsidy which is for the welfare of the individual. The Finance Bill, 2015 proposes to align the definition of Income with that provided in ICDS for this purpose. To restate the position, the provision in the Finance Bill, 2015, will not affect the LPG subsidy and other welfare subsidies received by individuals . </font></em></p> </blockquote> <p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><em><strong><font color="#006600">Tax Concession on Interest Paid on Education Loan </font></strong></em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>SECTION </strong>80E of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides that in computing the total income of an individual, there shall be allowed a deduction of the amount paid by way of interest on loan taken by him from any financial institution or approved charitable institution for the purpose of pursuing his own higher education or higher education of his spouse, or children, or the student for whom he is the legal guardian. The deduction is available for eight assessment years beginning with the assessment year in which the payment of interest on such loan is first made or until the interest is paid in full, whichever is earlier. This deduction is available to every individual who is liable to income-tax. No specific funds are earmarked for the purposes of extending tax concession against interest paid on education loan. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This was stated by Mr.Arun Jaitley, Union Finance Minister in a written reply to a question in the Rajya Sabha yesterday. </font></p> <p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><em><font color="#006600">GST Bill - I beseech you </font></em></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>YESTERDAY</strong> in the Lok Sabha, the Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said, "<em>Therefore, the Government is extremely keen and I would literally request you, beseech you, that after all, there are some issues in the life of our nation on which we have to rise above partisan considerations and once all our Chief Ministers are agreeable, why should we delay it? If we delay it, it means we are delaying it by one more financial year, and one more financial year means, your States or the consuming States are going to lose for one more year.</em>" </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Constitution Bill is almost through and may be passed today. The Congress party supports it. Mr.Veerappa Moily said in Lok Sabha, "<em>Sir, I stand here to support the GST Bill. It is quite a revolutionary measure. "and the FM said," Sir, let me thank Shri Veerappa Moily and his Party, and congratulate him for his statesman-like attitude.</em>" </font></p> <p align="center"><font size="3"><strong><em><font color="#006600" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">More Gold mystery in Trichy - Fake Gold in Customs vault </font></em></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IT</strong> was reported recently[<strong>DDT <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MjM0MDg=" target="_blank">2580</a> & <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MjM0Mzg=" target="_blank">2583</a></strong>]. that 15 kgs of gold was missing from the Trichy Customs office. The CBI is investigating the case and it seems, they are shocked to learn that about 30 kgs of gold with the Customs are fake. Obviously somebody walked off with the good gold and kept the bad one in the Customs warehouse. Heads will roll, but will we get back the gold?</font></p> <p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><em><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><em><font size="3">Jurispruden</font></em></font><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><em><font color="#FF6633" size="4">tiol-<font color="#006600" size="3"></font></font></em></font></strong></font></strong></font><font color="#006600"> Yesterday's SC Judgements </font></strong></em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF0000">Central Excise - Rebate - Limitation - the period of one year as amended in Section 11B from 1.5.2000, not applicable to claims already time barred - Supreme Court:</font></strong> Section 11B was amended w.e.f 12.5.2000 extending the time limit to file a refund claim from six months to one year. In a refund claim filed prior to the amendment, the time limit of six months expired on 20.11.1999 and the claim was filed on 28.12.1999. If the time limit was taken as one year as per the amended provision, the refund claim could be filed till 20.05.2000. Was the refund claim admissible? The Supreme Court says, NO. In this case it was rebate of duty paid on exported goods and the assessee could have cleared the goods without payment of duty, instead of claiming rebate. Then limitation would have been not an issue at all. But the Supreme Court was not impressed and held that the rebate claim was time barred. A grand victory for revenue after 14 years of relentless litigation!. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF0000">Service Tax - C&F Agents - 'clearing and forwarding operations' would cover those activities which pertain to clearing of the goods and thereafter forwarding those goods to a particular destination, at the instance and on the directions of the principal:</font></strong> This interesting case started with an adjudication order by a Superintendent holding that that the services rendered by the appellant would be covered by Section 65(25) of the Act and, therefore, exigible to service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the party's appeal. So did the Tribunal. The Tribunal had followed its own decision in <em>Prabhat Zarda Factory</em>. But <em>Prabhat Zarda Factory</em> was overruled by the Tribunal Larger Bench and Revenue accepted that decision. So does the Supreme Court now. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF0000">Customs - Classification - Import of LCD - classifiable under Chapter Heading 9013.80.:</font></strong> LCDs imported by the appellant were classifiable under Chapter Heading 9013.80. The view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment is unsustainable in law. The appeal is allowed and the orders of the authorities below are set aside. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF0000">CE - Classification - eligibility of D.C. Defibrillators for exemption under Notification No.8/96 dated 23.09.1996 and Notification No.4/97 dated 01.03.97 - not eligible </font></strong>- In this case, an interesting sidelight is that the appellant approached the Supreme Court against the decision of a Third Member of the Tribunal, even before the referral Bench could give its final judgement. So, the question of limitation was open -for the last 11 years and will be decided by the Tribunal now. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">These judgements were delivered by the Supreme Court yesterday. We bring them to you today. </font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please see Breaking News. </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><strong><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice day.</font></strong></p> <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@tiol.in"><strong>vijaywrite@tiol.in</strong></a></font> </p> </body> </html>