TIOL-DDT 2704 · 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><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" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">TIOL-DDT 2704</font><font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br> 14 10 2015<br> Wednesday</font></strong></p> <p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><em><font color="#006600">Customs - Voluntary payment of duty along with interest - Not Allowed? </font></em></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AN</strong> issue raised at the recent Open House meeting of Mumbai Customs was that the Customs authorities insist for amendment to the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act and allow payment of differential duty only after the amendment has been allowed by the Customs. It is pointed out that they should be allowed to make payment in Cash Department directly in the case of short levy etc. Members of BCHAA informed that payment of differential duty should be accepted and interest payment should be on the day the differential duty is paid and the amendment can be carried out later on. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Chief Commissioners informed the house that there is no restriction in paying the duty amount voluntarily as the same is prescribed in the Act itself. However, Department is facing system related issues which restricts voluntary payment of Customs duty before the Bill of Entry is reassessed and exact duty amount quantified. In the instance, where the importer/CHA initially pays the differential duty, the B/E is forwarded to Bank Queue and unless the duty is paid the Bill of Entry remains alive in ICES 1.5 system and would be shown as pending in the Bank queue. The Chief Commissioners further desired that a Committee comprising of Commissioner of Customs (Imp), Zone I and II, Banking officials and Stakeholders be formed immediately and the Committee should come out with a suggestive measure to resolve the issue by the next meeting. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Some of the other issues raised in the meeting were: </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FFFFFF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#860DA4" span="span">Only Two Copies of IGM: The Public Notice No. 20/2014-15 dated 1.4.2015 restricts submission of two hard copies of IGMs, however, the prevailing practice still continues and copies of IGMs are submitted to four different sections of the Customs.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Chief Commissioner of Customs, Zone I informed the house that a decision has been taken by the Board to restrict submission of hard of copies of IGM to two and Public Notice No. 20/2014-15 dated 1.04.2015 has been issued to that effect. Therefore, Department should stick to the Public Notice and henceforth, the Shipping Agents are required to submit only two hard copies of IGM. Chief Commissioner further directed Commissioner (Import) and Principal Commissioner (Gen) to ensure compliance of the Public Notice No. 20/2014-15 dated 1.4.2015. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FFFFFF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#860DA4" span="span">In Crew Sign on/off procedure, immigration and baggage examination is done at different places. It was requested that both should be at the gate itself to save time and fuel. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Chief Commissioner, Mumbai Zone I informed the house that the process of crew sign on/off and baggage examination involves, CISF, Customs and Immigration. The Chief Commissioners directed the Pr. Commissioner (Gen) to explore the possibility of the request by consulting with immigration, CISF authorities and find out a solution. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FFFFFF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#860DA4" span="span">Payment of interest in respect of delayed settlement of Duty Drawback payments- </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The issue is as regards the payment of interest on delayed payment of drawback there is no provision in ICES 1.5 System for payment of interest for delay in processing of drawback claims. However, in terms of Section 75A (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, where any drawback payable to a claimant is not paid within a period of one month from the date of filing of a claim for payment of such drawback, interest shall be paid. Exporters are liable to get their legitimate claim and Act specifies that Department should <em>suo moto</em> initiate necessary steps in paying interest if there is delay in processing drawback. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Chief Commissioners informed the house that the issue of payment of interest in respect of delayed settlement of drawback be taken up with DG/Systems and initiate necessary steps to institutionalize the procedure. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FFFFFF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#860DA4" span="span">Where to pay the fee for appeal?</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, to file an appeal, against an order issued, there is a requirement to make a Pre-Deposit to the jurisdictional Custom House. At present there is no such prescribed instructions at New Custom House and at ACC, Mumbai to recover the pre deposit amount. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Chief Commissioners, informed the house that the request is genuine and a suitable Standing Order would be issued </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">in due course of time.</font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTg2Mzk=" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mumbai -I Chief Commissioner of Customs F. No. S/I-22(2)/2013-CCOI(Unit IV) , Dated: October 09, 2015</font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><em><strong><font color="#006600">FTP - quantity for export of sugar to EU under CXL quota and to USA under Tariff Rate Quota</font></strong></em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT </strong>has allocated the quantity of sugar to be exported to EU under CXL Quota and to USA under TRQ upto 30.09.2016 </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTg2MzU=" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT Public Notice No.41/2015-2020., Dated: October 13, 2015 </strong></font></a></p> <p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><em><strong><font color="#006600">Income Tax - Deduction for Medical Treatment - Private Doctors' Certificates acceptable</font></strong></em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>AS </strong>per Section 80DDB of the Income Tax Act, a deduction of actual cost of treatment or forty thousand rupees, whichever is less is allowed for treatment of certain diseases as may be prescribed in the rules.And the diseases are: </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. <strong>Dementia;</strong> </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Dystonia Musculorum Deformans; </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Motor Neuron Disease; </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. Ataxia; </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. Chorea; </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6. Hemiballismus;</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">7. Aphasia; </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">8. Parkinsons Disease; </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">9. Malignant Cancers; </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">10. Full Blown Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS); </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">11. Chronic Renal failure; </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">12. Hematological disorders. </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">No deduction was allowed unless the assessee furnished with the return of income, a certificate in such form, as may be prescribed, from a neurologist, an oncologist, a urologist, a haematologist, an immunologist or such other specialist, as may be prescribed, working in a </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">Government hospital. </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The certificate was to be issued by doctors having a Doctorate of Medicine (D.M.) degree working in Government hospitals. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the Finance Act 2015, this provision was amended to stipulate that <em>no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee obtains the prescription for such medical treatment from a neurologist, an oncologist, a urologist, a haematologist, an immunologist or such other specialist, as may be prescribed. </em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">No more certificates, but only prescriptions and that too not necessarily from Government doctors. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now they have relaxed the rules to prescribe that the prescription in respect of the diseases or ailments shall be issued by doctors having a Doctorate of Medicine (D.M.) degree for certain ailments and having a post-graduate degree in General or Internal Medicine for certain other diseases. </font></p> <p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The prescription shall contain the name and age of the patient, name of the disease or ailment along with the name, address, registration number and the qualification of the specialist issuing the prescription. </font></em></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe it is far better to die of those diseases than trying to claim income tax deduction. Dementia is almost lunacy or memory loss and the Government wants that patient to remember that his doctor has a DM and he has to keep that prescription for god knows how many years. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Instead of all this bureaucratic maze, can't the Government exempt these sick people and all those who are above 75 years of age from Income Tax? Should the Government survive on tax from demented old citizens? How cruel! </font></p> <p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTg2Mzg=" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBDT Notification No. 78/2015., Dated: October 12, 2015</font></strong></a></p> <p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><em><font color="#006600">Customs Baggage - Liquor for Children?</font></em></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IT</strong> seems recently some thirty school students from UP went on education tour to Singapore. While returning, at the IGI Airport some of these children bought liquor from the duty free shop at the airport - at the insistence of their parents. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Are children allowed to bring liquor in their baggage? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Writing in our columns seven years ago - <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=6854" target="_blank"><strong>Duty-free liquor for children?</strong></a>, V. Unnikrishnan remarked, "<em>the free allowance of Alcoholic liquor upto 2 litres and 200 Cigarettes are permissible even for children and ladies since there is no exclusion clause. But here it is also pertinent to note that as per Union Health Ministry's guidelines both Liquor and Cigarettes are not to be sold to Children below 18 years. This also may be explicitly made clear in the Baggage Rules,1978. Hence the baggage allowance as well as sales from the Duty Free Shops are also to be regulated accordingly</em>.” </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Maybe liquor sale to children can be stopped at the duty free shops in the airports, but what can be done if the children carry liquor bottles from abroad? </font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><em>Babus above Law?</em></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IN</strong> a recent income tax case before the Bombay High Court, the assessee had asked the AO for a copy of recorded reasons for reopening of assessment. The Assessing Officer directed the assessee to file its return of income and also informed the assessee that the reasons would be furnished after the return of income is filed. The Assessing Officer thereafter completed the reassessment proceedings without giving a copy of the reasons recorded for reopening. The Tribunal naturally allowed the appeal of the assessee. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the High Court, the Revenue pleaded that the assessee had only asked for reasons </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">once </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">and did not further ask for reasons. Further as the assessee had participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer, it must be implied that reasons were furnished. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court held that no question of knowledge being attributed on the basis of implication can arise. The High Court further observed, "<em>We also do not appreciate the stand of the revenue, that the respondent assessee had asked for reasons recorded only once and therefore seeking to justify non-furnishing of reasons. </em></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span"><em>We expect the state to act more responsibly</em>." </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In another case, the High Court noted,</font></p> <p align="justify"><strong><font color="#CC0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#F3DBCF">Unwarranted cases - Costs to be imposed personally on Commissioners : </font></strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#F3DBCF"> We have noticed that the Revenue has been preferring appeals from the orders of the Tribunal even where the issue stands concluded by the orders of this High Court. These appeals are filed by the Revenue in a very casual manner without indicating the basis of the challenge i.e. some distinction in facts from the order of the High Court or that the order of the jurisdictional High Court is a subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court. In the absence of the above explanation, it follows that there are times when even though the decision of the jurisdictional High Court has been accepted by the Revenue and yet the Revenue chooses to file an appeal on the same issue before this Court. Rule of law implies certainty of law and the State filing appeals on settled issues arbitrarily and/or without any application of mind. This filing of appeal without due application of mind leads to attempting to unsettle settled position without reasons. This casual manner of filing appeals subjects an assessee to unnecessary expenditure and at times anxiety. Even the Revenue incurs substantial expenses in pursuing unwarranted cases, which are a sheer waste of public money. The least that the Revenue should do is to examine whether or not the decision of the jurisdictional High Court being relied upon by the Tribunal, is subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court or is otherwise distinguishable and the same must be indicated in the appeal memo. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"style="background-color:#F3DBCF">In the above view, we were contemplating to impose costs on the Revenue. However, we noticed that on earlier occasion when costs were imposed on the Revenue, it seemed to matter little to the Officers, for after all the amount came out of the general pool of tax paid by the tax payers. In the circumstances, we are now putting the Officers of the Revenue to notice, that in all cases including where appeals are filed, the Offices instructing the Counsel would review whether the appeal should at all be pressed in view of the Revenue having accepted the jurisdictional High Court's order on an identical issue and take necessary instructions from the Commissioner of Income Tax to withdraw and/or not press the appeal. Alternatively, in case a conscious decision is taken to press the appeal, then an averment to the effect that either the case is distinguishable or an appeal has been preferred from the decision of this Court to the Apex Court if not averred in the appeal memo, then a further affidavit in support be filed indicating the reasons. In the absence of the above, we will be compelled to impose heavy/exemplary costs to be personally paid by the jurisdictional - Commissioner of Income Tax under whose jurisdiction, the appeal is being filed and pressed in spite of the issue being settled by this Court and the same having been accepted by the Revenue. </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"><strong><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice day. </font></strong></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@tiol.in"><strong>vijaywrite@tiol.in</strong></a></font></p> </body> </html>