TIOL-DDT 48 · 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">
<div align="justify">
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <b><font color="#0000FF" size="3">TIOL-
DDT 48</font><br>
07 02 2005<br>
Monday</b></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<b>Crude palm oil and palmoleine – Scope of exemption expanded</b></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> As per Sl. No.34
of Notification No.21/2002- Cus dt.1.3.2002, crude palm oil and its fractions
attract a concessional rate of duty subject to certain specifications like
having a carotenoid content in the range of 500 – 2500 mg/Kg. and an
acid value of 2 or more.<br>
<br>
These specifications were prescribed to prevent the import of refined palm
oil in the guise of crude. But importers were faced with a problem that crude
of palm oil with these specifications are not available in the International
market and even if it available, the carotenoid content gets reduced during
handling and transportation. The importers had to face problems with the customs,
as on testing, the crude palm oil proved to contain less than the prescribed
carotenoid content.<br>
<br>
A responsive government has reacted to the problems of the importers and amended
the notification to provide for the same concessional rate of duty of 65%
for <br>
<br>
(1) Crude palm oil with carotenoid range from 250 – 2500 mg/Kg and having
an acid value of 4 or more; <br>
<br>
(2) Crude palmoleine with carotenoid range from 500 – 2500 mg/Kg and
having an acid value of 4 or more;<br>
<br>
(3) Fractions of crude palm oil with carotenoid range from 500 – 2500
mg/Kg and having an acid value of 2 or more (this is already available).<br>
<br>
For (1) and (2), the exemption is subject to actual user condition, i.e. it
should be used for manufacture of refined oil, refined palmoleine, vanaspathi,
bakery shortening or inter – esterfied fats and the importer should
follow the procedure set out in the Customs (Import Of Goods At Concessional
Rate Of Duty For Manufacture Of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. <br>
<br>
It may be recalled that the exemption from Central Excise duty available to
vegetable oils has been withdrawn by notification no. 66/2004 – CE dt.31.12.2004.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2005/ctariff05_007.htm"><b>Notification
No.7/2005 – Cus. Dt.4.2.2005</b></a><br>
<br>
<br>
<font color="#006633"><b>Avoidance of double taxation–Philippines–
Government amends Notification</b></font><br>
<br>
The Central Government has amended Notification No.GSR 173 (E) dt. 2.4.1996
to substitute Article 15 (1) (b) of the convention with <br>
<br>
"If the recipient is present in the other State for period or periods
<b>exceeds</b> in the aggregate 183 days in the relevant "previous year"
in the case of Republic India or "calendar year" in the case of
Republic of the Philippines".<br>
<br>
The original Article 15 (1) (b) as per Notification No. 173 (E) dt. 2.4.1996
stood like this<br>
<br>
“(b) the recipient is present in the other State for a period or periods
<b>not</b> <b>exceeding</b> in the aggregate 183 days in the relevant "previous
year" in the case of Republic of India or "calendar year" in
the case of Republic of the Philippines.”<br>
<br>
The difference between these two is that as per the old notification, period
of stay in the other state <b>should not exceed</b> 183 days but as per the
present amendment the period should exceed 183 days.<br>
<br>
Strangely there is another angle to this story. As per CBDT’s website
<b><a href="http://www.incometaxindia.gov.in">www.incometaxindia.gov.in</a></b>
the notification governing the double taxation agreement between Philippines
and India is Notification No.10041 dt.25.3.96. As per this notification article
15 (1)(b) reads as follows:<br>
<br>
“(b) the recipient is present in the other State for a period or periods
not exceeding in the aggregate 183 days in the relevant " previous year
" in the case of Republic of India or " calendar year " in
the case of Republic of the Philippines.” <br>
<br>
Will the CBDT please clarify whether the notification is 173(E) or 10041 and
whether the stay in the other state should be more than 183 days or less?<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=35&filename=notification/cbdt/2005/it05not023.htm"><b>Notification
No.23/2005 –IT dt.02.02.2005</b></a><br>
<br>
<font color="#006633"><b>Education cess by EOUs – Raghavendra Rao formula?</b></font><br>
<br>
Do you know how to calculate the education cess payable by the EOUs while
making DTA clearances? The Development Commissioner of an SEZ, (who is also
the Development Commissioner for all the EOUs in his state) the other day
in a meeting expressed his anguish that no body is clear on what exactly is
the amount payable. He said “now there is the Raghavendra Rao formula”.
He was referring to Taxindiaonline last week’s guest column article
by Raghavendra Rao.<br>
<b><br>
<font color="#006633">What is the customs duty on imported car – 4 different
rates? </font></b><br>
<br>
A senior Customs Officer, now on deputation to a Corporation wanted to know
the customs duty on imported car. He called up his colleagues in four major
Custom Houses and he was given four different rates!<br>
<br>
<font color="#006633"><b>Central Government employees! Your salary for February
is safe</b></font><br>
<br>
A section of the Electronic Media (<b>not taxindiaonline</b>) had reported
that the Government may not be able to disperse the salaries of February 2005
to its employees. The Government has categorically clarified that adequate
funds are available to meet all liabilities of the Government including payment
of salaries to the employees.<br>
<br>
<b>The good news for taxpayers is that the smartest tax experts don't work
for the IRS. They were smart enough to realize that taxpayers will pay more
to keep their money than the government will pay to collect it.</b> <br>
<br>
<font color="#FF0000"><b>With more of DDT for tomorrow <br>
<br>
Have a Nice Day<br>
<br>
Mail your comments to</b></font> <b>vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </b><br>
<br>
<br>
</font> </p>
</div>
</body>
</html>