TIOL-DDT 33 · 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">
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#0000FF" size="3">TIOL-DDT
33</font><br>
17 1 2005<br>
Monday</b></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#009933" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>CBEC
3Q results out – Tall claims!</b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>If
CBEC's</b> shares were quoted in the stock exchange, there would have
been a steep fall in the price. The CBEC has released a press release through
the PIB giving itself full credit for a commendable performance during the nine
months of the present fiscal year. The CBEC has chosen to release the press
note through the PIB and not through its own website. Many in the Board does
not really know how the departmental website functions! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
statistics provided shows that the excise revenue stood at 68426 crores compared
to 63617 for the same period in the previous year. And Service Tax collections
were 8220 crores compared to the previous year. The press release of course
does not mention that as per the budget estimates, about 82000 crores under
Central Excise and about 11000 crores in Service Tax should have been collected
by December end. The collections as of now are alarmingly below the estimates
of the Finance Minister as per his budget. This means that as of now the CBEC
has offered about 17,000 crores less than what the Finance Minister expected.
</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nothing
wrong. Revenue does not come because of the revenue officers, it does in spite
of them. The annual tamasha of commissioners and above taking credit for reaching
the target by hook or crook is a big farce, but here is a Board which goes about
flaunting its failure to reach up to the expectations of the Finance Minister.
The press release goes on to boast that notices have been issued demanding excise
duty to the tune of 1641 crores. It is almost certain that out of this 1641
crores not even 164 crores will be confirmed. Can the Board tell the world what
was the demanded amount say five years ago in the year 1999-2000 and how much
was confirmed in the last five years? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
funniest part of the press release is that the department takes credit for seizing
sea lions!. We had reported the farce about sea lions- how they landed up in
Sahar- how they went on to Kolkotta- how they were seized in Kolkotta- and how
they were performing in the circus when last heard- and how the department got
rapped by animal activists! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#006600">DGFT
clarification on deemed exports- but where is the Public Notice?</font></b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Compared
to the CBEC, the DGFT had consistently proved better in drafting and publishing
notifications and circulars. One possible reason could be DGFT does not have
'expert' revenue officers to claim any monopoly on knowledge of
economic matters. The DGFT website is also fairly well maintained and regularly
updated compared to the apology of a website that the CBEC maintains. But the
problem with Government web sites is that even if an earth shaking law is notified
in the evening of the weekend, no force on earth can see these notifications
finding a place in the website. This is what happened to the latest Public Notice
No. 44 issued by the DGFT on 14.1.2005. By the time the Public Notice was issued
on Friday evening, officers must have already left for their weekend holidays
and there was nobody to upload the PN in the website. All our efforts to get
a copy of the PN proved futile. It seems that the PN clarifies that <i>supplies
of goods will be eligible for refund of Terminal Excise Duty in cases where
the recipient of the goods does not avail CENVAT credit/rebate on such goods.
Similarly, supplies will be eligible for deemed export drawback provided CENVAT
credit has not been availed of by the applicant. However, such supplies will
be eligible for deemed export drawback on the customs duty paid on the inputs/components..
</i></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>We
hope to carry the PN today. </b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#006600">Used
steel rails for re-rolling - classifiable under CTH 7204 and freely importable-
Board issues clarifications.</font></b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>In
the first Circular of the year, the CBEC has given several clarifications on
Customs classification and eligibility of certain notifications, based on the
recommendations of the CC's conference. The clarifications are:-</b></font></p>
<ol>
<li><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">Pontoon
upgraded as Accommodation Barge is classifiable under heading 8905.</font></li>
<li><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">
In case, all the parts/components of the mobile phone handset are imported
in a single consignment, it would be classified as 'complete mobile handset'
under CTH 852520.17 and hence it would be ineligible for benefit under Sl.No.
319 or 320 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1.3.2002, applicable for
parts.</font></li>
<li><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">
'general purpose labelling machine' is eligible for exemption under S.No.250
of Notification No.21/2002-Cus., dated 1.3.2002, if it could also be used
in the textile industry. </font></li>
<li><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">fuel
injection pumps and injectors exported and re-imported after fitment onto
engines are not covered by notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16.12.96. </font></li>
<li><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">ACT
test tubes are eligible for exemption under Notification No.21/2002-Cus.,
dated 1.3.2002 – Sl. 363 B (List 37, Sr.59).</font></li>
<li><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">'Dant
Mukta' is not eligible for benefit under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated
1.3.2002, Sl.No.63. ( This is a clarification regarding a Central Excise exemption
and Board clarifies it in a Customs circular!)</font></li>
<li><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">
Exemption would be available on the import of inflatable life jackets and
life rafts considering these as essential parts for the manufacture of ships.
(sl.No. 356 of Notification No. 21/2002)</font></li>
<li><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">
Benefit of Notification No. 80/70-Cus., dated 29.8.1970 would not be extended
to import of warranty replacements by companies or commercial organisations.</font></li>
<li><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">
used steel rails for re-rolling were appropriately classifiable under CTH
7204 and these were freely importable.</font></li>
</ol>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">Board
wants the field to finalise any pending assessments based on these clarifications
and issue suitable Public Notices. Fine but how did a Central Excise clarification
get smuggled into a Customs circular? Normally Central Excise officers do not
read customs circulars especially such long ones. Will not this Central Excise
clarification get drowned among the customs clarifications?</font> </p>
<p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"><b><u>CBEC
CIRCULAR NO 1/2005-Cus, Dated : January 11, 2005</u></b></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"><b><font color="#006600">Pune
Airport to handle some more items:-</font></b><br>
Some more items have been added to the list of articles for unloading and loading
from Pune Airport. Notification No. 61/94-Customs (NT.) is amended. </font></p>
<p><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"><b>NOTIFICATION
NO 01/2005-Cus (NT), Dated : January 11, 2005</b></font></p>
<p><b><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">Customs
Commissioners appointed to adjudicate specific cases. </font></b></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">Several
Commissioners have been appointed in other jurisdictions to adjudicate specific
cases mostly booked by DRI.<b><font color="#0000FF"><br>
</font></b></font><font color="#0000FF" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"><b>Notification
Nos. 2 to 7/2005-CUSTOMS (N.T.) dated 13th January, 2005.</b></font></p>
<p><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"><b>There’s
another feature of chronic cognitive dissonance: always shoot the messenger.</b></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"><font color="#FF0000"><b>Until
Tomorrow with more of DDT<br>
<br>
Have a Nice Day</b></font></font></p>
</body>
</html>