TIOL-DDT 2933 · 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"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=26988"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/limca_book2016.jpg" alt="DDT in Limca Book of Records - Third Time in a row" width="252" height="220" hspace="5" border="0" align="right" ></a></font><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 2933</font><br>
20 09 2016<br>
Tuesday</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><em><font color="#006600">No Legal Infirmity in GST Notifications - Revenue Secretary - Government by Twitter?</font></em></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>SOCIAL</STRONG> Media seems to have taken over GST. Rumours, expert opinions (often wrong) and falsehoods are spreading in social media at the speed of light and the Government also seems to have taken to the social media to react and clarify. The Revenue Secretary has taken to twitter to clarify on the weekend tremors that the GST notifications caused on the social media.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Revenue Secretary tweeted;</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>DoR examined the validity and implications of notfns dated 10th and 16th Sept wrt existing taxes imposed by the Union and states.</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is no legal infirmity in these notifications.</font></em></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Law dept has confirmed that there appears to be no legal requirement to issue any further clarification or notification in this regard.</font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The IRS(C&CE) Association tweeted;</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Apparent errors committed by Dept. of Revenue in issuance of notification on GST could have been avoided if CBEC officials were on board.</font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A Netizen mailed me;</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tell those IRS officers who created and spread this confusion that it is once again established that IAS is far far better as per the latest tweets by Adhia (They responded quickly to a non-existing problem, did not bury their head like ostrich and finally they did no wrong).</font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anyway, the problem appears to have been solved. If anybody plans to challenge these provisions in the Courts, I should warn that it is a futile exercise. Even if they are wrong, they have Section 20 under which the President can remove difficulties and if even that fails, they have the 'retrospective legislation.' In any case, as discussed in yesterday's DDT, there was no problem really. But after the social media, now the mainstream media like popular newspapers (not the pink ones alone) and TV channels have taken over and are spreading the view that there is no excise duty from 16th September. A leading highly respected newspaper even reported that if you buy a car in the weekend, you could even claim a refund of the excise duty paid. Should the Nation be misled by such misguided missiles called news reporters?</font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><em><strong><font color="#006600"><a name="f1"></a>Is GST Council Notification Invalid?</font></strong></em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>SEVERAL </STRONG>experts told me, <em>"Excise duty must have been saved, but the notification giving effect to Section 12 of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, is invalid."</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per Section 1(2) of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the commencement of that provision. </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Constitution (One Hundred and First Amendment) Act, 2016, the Central Government appointed the 12th day of September, 2016 as the date on which the provisions of Section 12 of the said Act shall come into force - by a notification dated 10th September 2016. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By another Notification dated 16th September 2016, the Government notified the other sections of the Act, including Section 1. Now, when Section 1 was notified only on 16th September 2016, how can the powers under that section be used to notify Section 12 on 10th September? There seems to be some problem here. This is a Catch-22 situation. Unless you notify Section 1, the Act does not come into force, but you cannot notify Section 1 unless the Act comes into force. An editorial colleague told me that such Acts can never be notified. But this is a problem as old as the Laws themselves. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Section 1(3) of the <em>Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 stipulates, "It shall come into force on such date or dates as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act.. " </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Section 1(2) of the <em>Official Languages Act, 1963 states, "…… Act shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act." </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are several Acts like these and all of them have come into effect by notifications issued by the government in exercise of the powers under Section 1, which had not come into existence. Example - <em>"In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Indian Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001 (51 of 2001), the Central Government hereby appoints the 3rd day of October, 2001 as the date on which the said Act shall come into force." </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The <em>Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016</em> solved this problem by not notifying the Section 1at all. They notified from Section 2. It is assumed that Section 1 automatically comes into existence!</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">These are all examples of bad drafting by our all-knowing babus who can get away with anything, but recently there was a brilliant drafting of the Companies Act 2013 in which Section 1 reads as: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>1. (1) This Act may be called the Companies Act, 2013. </em></font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(2) It extends to the whole of India. </font></em></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(3) This section shall come into force at once and the remaining provisions of this Act shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this Act ……. </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, the Section 1 comes into force immediately on the Bill becoming the Act and all other Sections can be notified at Government's will, pleasure and convenience. Whoever drafted this must have foreseen the problem of notifying the Act and came up with his brilliant solution. He deserves a Bharat Ratna. This is how the Section 1 in all the Acts has to be drafted. The Ministry of Law and the Department of Revenue must utilize the services of that officer who drafted this provision. Incidentally this is not his invention - what I praise him for is finding out the correct words, which were used earlier. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sixty years ago, the <em>The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956</em> had an identical provision. So did the <em>Maharashtra Medical Council Act, 1965</em> and long before the <em>Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1933. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, the Revenue Department might be technically wrong in notifying Section 1 on 16th September and Section 12 on 10th September, but this is a mistake we have been carrying on since 1948 (as my quick research reveals - it could even be earlier.) and we can't blame anyone now. But in future every lawmaker should follow the example of <em>Companies Act 2013. </em></font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/ddt2933.jpg" alt="" width="546" height="74" hspace="5" border="0" align="center"></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Next time you go to a Central Excise/Customs/Income Tax office, you may be greeted with the above board. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBI Director Anil Sinha recently wrote to the Revenue Secretary Dr. Hasmukh Adhia, </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>In order to deal more effectively with complaints of corruption against public servants in various agencies of Deptt of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, it is necessary to proactively solicit information from public. As such, a message on following lines in Hindi/local language and English in black colour on yellow background may please be painted at prominent public places in all the Government offices of income Tax, Customs & Central Excise, Enforcement Directorate etc. across the country. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This will encourage citizens facing demands of bribe to instantly report to the local CBI Anti-Corruption Branches. It is requested to issue directions to the authorities concerned in Income Tax, Customs & Central Excise, Enforcement Directorate etc. to have the aforementioned message painted (not pasted) in coordination with local Head of CBI Anti-Corruption Branches. All CBI Branches are being separately instructed to liaise with local authorities of Department of Revenue for prompt follow up action. </font></em></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CBDT has consequently issued instructions to all the Principal Chief Commissioners to ensure that the display board is put in place within 30 days. CBEC should also be issuing such a direction. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MjA1Mjg=" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBDT F.No.A-27023/21/2016-AdVI(A)., Dated: September 19 2016</font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><em><strong><font color="#006600"><a name="f2"></a>Payment of deficit Court fees in Supreme Court by CBEC Commissioners </font></strong></em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong> CBEC finds that despite several correspondences on the subject, out of 796 cases, only in respect of 115 cases fees has been remitted so far. Therefore, Chief Commissioners are requested to invariably keep a check on Supreme court cause lists for hearing date published by the Supreme Court on weekly and daily basis, so that deficit court fee is remitted before the hearing to prevent any adverse fallout. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MjA1Mjk=" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DIRECTORATE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS CBEC F.No.1080/45/DLA/2015-16/1976., Dated: September 14 2016 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><em><font color="#006600"><a name="f3"></a>Import policy of Rough Marble and Travertine Blocks </font></em></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>Policy for import of Marble and Travertine- Crude or Roughly trimmed and merely cut, by sawing or otherwise, into blocks of a rectangular (including square) shape was restricted and subject to import licensing procedures. This is now amended to make import free w.e.f 01.10.2016 provided cif value is USD 200 or above per MT. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MjA1MjM=" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT Notification No. 27 (RE-2015)/2015-2020., Dated: September 17 2016 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><font color="#006600"><em><a name="f4"></a>Import policy of Worked monumental or building stone (except slate) and articles thereof </em></font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>import of items related to marble slabs is permitted freely provided cif value is USD 40 or above per square metre (for maximum thickness of slab of 20 mm) w.e.f. 1.10.2016. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MjA1MjQ=" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT Notification No. 28 (RE-2015)/2015-2020., Dated: September 17 2016 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><em><strong><font color="#006600"><a name="f5"></a>Import policy of Granite Slabs </font></strong></em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>import of items related to granite slabs is permitted freely provided cif value is USD 50 or above per square metre (for maximum thickness of slab of 20 mm) w.e.f. 1.10.2016. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MjA1MjU=" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT Notification No. 29 (RE-2015)/2015-2020., Dated: September 17 2016 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><em><font color="#006600"><a name="f6"></a>Customs Duty on Marble and Granite Slabs </font></em></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>Customs duty for the above marble and granite has been fixed at 20%. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please also see <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=28081" target="_blank"><strong>DDT 2928</strong></a>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MjA1MTY=" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 49/2016-Cus., Dated: September 16 2016 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><em><strong><font color="#006600"><a name="f7"></a>Supply of goods from EOUs without payment of Duty against Advance Licence </font></strong></em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CBEC</strong> clarifies:Central Excise duty is exempted when manufactured goods are supplied by EOU to an Advance Licence/Authorisation Holder. In fact, clearance from EOU or DTA unit to Advance Licence/Authorisation holder has been allowed without payment of Central Excise duty, as both the cases are of <em>"Import substitution."</em> In case of supply of goods to Advance Licence/Authorisation holder, the export obligation is cast upon person holding Advance Licence/Authorisation and in case of default in export obligation recovery from the person holding Advance Licence/Authorisation is provided for in law. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MjA1MTk=" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC Circular No.1046/34/2016-CX., Dated: September 16 2016 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><em><strong><font color="#006600"><a name="f8"></a>Rebate of duties on raw materials used in manufacture of export goods and duty drawback in such cases - CBEC Clarifies </font></strong></em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>REPRESENTATIONS</STRONG> have been received from trade regarding difficulty in simultaneously availing drawback of Customs portion and rebate of duties of excise on raw material used in the manufacture or processing of goods exported. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC clarifies: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>(i) Where in respect of exports, CENVAT credit is not availed on inputs but input stage rebate on excisable goods except diesel is availed under rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, drawback of Customs portion, as per rates and caps specified in column (6) and (7) of the drawback schedule shall be admissible; </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) Where in respect of exports, CENVAT credit is not availed on inputs but the inputs except diesel, are procured without payment of Central Excise duty under sub-rule (2) of rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, drawback of Customs portion, as per rates and caps specified in column (6) and (7) of the drawback schedule shall be admissible; </font></em></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iii) Where in respect of exports, input stage rebate on diesel under rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is availed or diesel is procured without payment of Central Excise duty under sub-rule (2) of rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, no drawback either under column (6) and (7) or column (4) and (5) of the drawback schedule shall be admissible.</font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MjA1MTg=" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC Circular No.1047/35/2016-CX., Dated: September 16 2016</font></strong></a></p>
<table width="98%" border="0" align="center" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="2" bgcolor="#009900">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#E1E9EC">
<div align="justify">
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">One of the problems with trying to have a rational discussion about taxes is that so many people want to believe what's convenient rather than what's accurate. Believing, after all, requires so much less effort than thinking. </font></p>
</div></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<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"><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 <a href="mailto:vijaywrite@tiol.in" target="_blank"><strong>vijaywrite@tiol.in</strong></a></font></p>
</body>
</html>