TIOL-DDT 374 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<link rel=Edit-Time-Data href="Taxindiaonline's%20DDT%20374_files/editdata.mso">
<title>Taxindiaonline's DDT 363</title>
</head>
<body>
<p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT
374</font><br>
31 05 2006<br>
Wednesday</b></font></p>
<p align=center ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#006600">Exemption
to goods used for setting up mega power projects – Special concession to J&K
and NE states</font></b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As
per the existing notification, goods required for setting up of a Mega Power
Project are exempted if the project is an inter-State thermal power plant of
a capacity of 1000 MW or more; or an inter-State hydel power plant of a capacity
of 500 MW or more. Now for the states ofJammu and Kashmir, Sikkim, Arunachal
Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Manipur, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura, the capacity
is reduced to 700 MW and 350 MW respectively for the exemption. Relatively less
mega projects in these states will also be eligible for this exemption now.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">One
of the conditions for availing this benefit was that </font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">the
power purchasing State has agreed to provide recourse to that State’s share
of Central Plan allocations and other devolutions towards discharge of any outstanding
payment in respect of purchase of power;</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now
this condition is omitted. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><u><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2006/ctariff06_049.htm">NOTIFICATION
NO. 49/2006-Cus., Dated: May 26, 2006</a></u></font></p>
<p align=center ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#006600">Anti-dumping
duty on white portland cement, originating in, or exported from UAE and Iranextended
but what is the date of the notification?.</font></b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Based
on the recommendations of the Designated Authority, who had initiated a sun
set review, Government has extended the Anti-dumping duty on white portland
cement, originating in, or exported from UAE and Irantill 13th June 2007. The
original notification No. 99/2001 – Cus dated …. > Well what is the date
of this notification. The amending notification gives two dates. Please see
the following two sentences from the notification.</font></p>
<p align="justify" > <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ anti-dumping
duty on White Cement falling under tariff item 2523 21 00 of the First Schedule
to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), originating in,
or exported from, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Iran, imposed vide notification
No. 99/2001–Customs, dated the <b>3<sup>rd</sup> October, 2001</b>, </font></p>
<p align="justify" > <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ the
Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification
of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue)
No. 99/2001–Customs, dated the <b>2<sup>nd</sup> November 2001</b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>So
this notification was issued on two dates 3<sup>rd</sup> October, 2001 and 2<sup>nd</sup>
November 2001. How is it possible? Only Board can enlighten. This can create
serious problems as Board has amended Notification No. 99/2001 dated 2<sup>nd</sup>
November 2001, but there was no Notification No. 99 issued on that date; so
the Notification No. 99/2001 issued on 3<sup>rd</sup> October will lapse on
13<sup>th</sup> June 2006 unless the usual corrigendum is issued before that
date. </b></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><u><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2006/ctariff06_050.htm">NOTIFICATION
NO. 50/2006-Cus., Dated: May 26, 2006</a></u></font></p>
<p align=center ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#006600">Service
Tax clarification from Customs Commissioner - Customs EDI centre liable to Service
Tax </font></b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">When
it comes to Service Tax, it appears everybody can issue clarifications and some
authorities like Board can give two diametrically opposite clarifications. The
latest to join the list of clarificators is The Mumbai Customs Commissioner
(Imports). He clarifies that Service Tax is payable on the services rendered
by CMC at the Customs EDI centres. The Commissioner has directed CMC to collect
12.24% tax from the users and “affix a stamp on all the existing coupons indicating,
“12.24% Service Tax Extra”, & “Service Tax Registration No. _________”.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
Commissioner’s provocation to issue such instructions is apparently the Finance
Act 2006. His circular says,</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Service
Tax @12% and Education Cess @ 2% of the Service Tax (12.24% aggregate) is leviable
w.e.f. 01.05.2006 on any service in relation to computerized data processing
and maintaining of Computer Software as per Section 65(19) of Finance Act 1994
as amended by Finance Act 2006 read with Notification No. 15/2006 ST dt. 25.04.2006.
</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
Finance Act has amended clause 19 of Section 65 as follows, “"developing
or maintaining of computer software, or computerised data processing",
the words "or developing of computer software" shall be substituted;</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So
maintaining of computer software was deleted from the excluded category. How
will this bring CMC into the Service Tax net for the EDI work? And how was it
not covered earlier? Is CMC marinating computer software? Id so who is the client?
It should be the Customs and they should pay Service Tax. And in what way is
the Customs Commissioner concerned with Service Tax? If CMC is to be registered
with Service Tax, he should go to the Service Tax Commissionerate and not to
the Customs Commissioner. </font></p>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><u><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=wnew/tradenotice.htm">PUBLIC
NOTICE NO. 16 / 2006 dated 10<sup>th</sup> May 2006 of the COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), Mumbai</a></u></font></p>
<P align=center><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><B><IMG height=62 src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/ddt/gnl_txt2.jpg" width=375></B></font></P>
<table width="375" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width=375 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD width="67"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><IMG height=67 src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/ddt/gnl_word.jpg" width=67 align=absMiddle></font></TD>
<TD><div align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><i><font color="#0000FF">caveat</font></i></b><font color="#0000FF"><b><i>
emptor:</i></b></font><b><i> </i></b><strong>"let the buyer
beware." This rule generally applies to all sales between
individuals. It gives the buyer full responsibility for determining
the quality of the goods in question. The seller generally has
no duty to offer warranties or to disclose defects in the goods.</strong></font></div></TD>
</TR>
</TBODY>
</TABLE></td>
</tr>
</table>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
general rule undoubtedly is, that a person cannot transfer to another a right
which he does not himself possesses. The rule of<b><i>caveat emptor</i></b>
spells out two exceptions to the rule, one in cases for encouragement of commerce
such as sales in market overt and other to the transfer of negotiable instruments.
Take for example, if the seller has endorsed and delivered to the buyer the
Bill of Leading or any other documents of title to the goods and the buyer has
endorsed and delivered it to his sub buyer, then the sub buyer, provided he
has taken the document in good faith, as well as for valuable consideration,
is entitled to the goods free from any right in the original seller to stop
them, and thus his position is better than that of the original buyer, same
is a position of sales in market-overt.</font></p>
<p align=center ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#006600">Maxim</font></b></font></p>
<p align=center ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>everybody
is presumed to know the law - <br>
</b></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Excise
authorities are also presumed to know the law</b></font></p>
<p align=justify ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#663399">The
concept that everybody is presumed to know the law was itself of doubtful validity
originally. Even in ancient times when laws were few the maxim at best might
have represented half truth. But now with so many complex laws with numerous
bye-laws etc. it would be perhaps more nearer to truth and reality to say that
nobody knows the laws. But even if we adhere to that legal concept that everybody
is presumed to know the law must also presume that the excise authorities are
presumed also to know the law; in that background of unreal presumption it cannot
be said that the goods in question were removed secretly or in clandestine manner.
In view of the detailed site plan and process flow chart submitted by the petitioner,
there are no material in this case to come to the conclusion that the goods
were removed clandestinely</font></b><font color="#663399"><b>.</b></font></font></p>
<p align=center ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Calcutta
High Court </b></font></p>
<p ><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until
Tomorrow with more DDT </font></p>
<p><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have
a nice day. </font></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@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com</a></font></p>
</body>
</html>