TIOL-DDT 61 · 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
61</font><br>
24 2 2005<br>
Thursday</b></font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<b>Today is <em><font color="#0033CC" size="6" face="Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><SPAN STYLE="background-color: #ffffcc">Central
Excise Day</span></font></em></b></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <b>THERE</b>
will be full page advertisements in national dailies and meetings in Commissionerates
to celebrate the DAY declaring a re-dedication to serve this country.<br>
<br>
DDT greets all the Central Excise officers and their families and wishes them
all the best always. On this occasion, a serving officer who obviously wanted
to remain anonymous sent us a few jokes on the department. When DDT told him
that it may not be nice to spoil the birthday party, he said, "We are
mature enough to laugh at ourselves". So have a good laugh and a hilarious
excise day.<br>
<br>
<b>EXCISE DUTY ON DRUGS AND MEDICINES - abatement increased</b><br>
<br>
In yesterday's DDT we carried the Board clarification that 35% abatement
was justified and we had asked a question, What about the margin to the manufacturer?
Is he supposed to be a charity organisation? We are happy to report
that the Government has now increased the abatement to 40% instead of 35%,
but the Board seems to be shy of publishing its notifications. Board is working
overtime to see that notifications are not available to the public. A notification
should be effective only when it is made known to the public and the Board
is now bent upon hiding them from the public at least for a few days. All
government websites are closed at 5 pm and any notification, of any level
of importance will not be carried by the Government websites if it is issued
after 5 pm and CBEC specialises in after-office-hours notifications, with
the result that at least for a day, the public is denied access to the notification
and its benefits, but the liabilities under the notification will visit them
even if they had no access to the notification. It is really sad that in this
e-age the Government is working hard to prevent information from reaching
the targeted audiences. <br>
<br>
<b>Consignment wise payment of duty and scrutiny of returns - back</b><br>
<br>
Why excise laws are subject to frequent tinkering?<br>
<br>
The Central Excise Rules, 1944 were in action for over half a century and
were more or less settled, when somebody in the Board had a bright idea that
these rules had to be broken up into several pieces and confusion increased
so that the assessees and the officers will not have peace of mind. So by
Notification No. <a href="http://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=NzI5OA==" target="_blank"><strong>9/2001-C.E. (N.T.)</strong></a>, dated 1-3-2001, the Central Excise Rules,
2001 were notified to be effective from 1.7.2001. But these rules had a premature
death, one day before birth on 30.6.2001, when the Central Excise (No. 2)
Rules, 2001 were brought into force. These rules lasted less than a year when
the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were brought in with effect from 1.3.2002.
And these rules have undergone over a dozen amendments in the last three years,
mostly to bring back the provisions the law makers forgot to include.<br>
<br>
Somewhere down the line, the Government brought in a fortnightly and later
a monthly payment of duty destroying the discipline in the industry of paying
the duty before clearance. An assessee would never clear goods if he did not
have enough money to pay the duty. Once he was allowed to pay duty on a monthly
basis, problems started creeping in. Liquidity problems would prevent the
assessee from being able to pay the whole month's duty at the end of
the month and naturally there were defaults which worried the Government.
There was a provision in the 2001 Rules to make defaulters pay on consignment
basis and that too from PLA. Now the Government proposes to bring back the
same provision.<br>
<br>
<b>The Government also proposes</b></font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. to provide for scrutiny of the correctness of the duty paid by the assessee;<br>
<br>
2. to require the assessees to make all records available to the officer when
required;<br>
<br>
3. to make available to department all records including trial balances(?)
by assessees and dealers.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> It has become a regular practice for the revenue to make the Finance Minister
to announce all sorts of concessions and benefits and then slowly withdraw
them by tactical amendments to the Rules. Why can't the department once
for all decide its policy and act accordingly instead of this periodic bout
of law tinkering? If you have any objection or comments on the proposed amendments,
they may be sent to <b>Neerav Kumar Mallick, Under Secretary (CX-6),CBEC,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance by post or by email to: neeravkr@nic.in
by 21.3.2005.</b> Not that they will be considered, for they appear
to have made up their minds and now there is no going back.<br>
<br>
<b>Import of metal scrap - Board adds ICD Nagpur to the list</b><br>
<br>
Import of metal scrap is allowed only through certain stations and this list
is decided by DGFT and CBEC by separate Public Notices and Circulars. Recently
DGFT had added ICD Nagpur to the list of eligible stations. <b>In DDT 56,
it was pointed out</b>,<br>
<br>
Shouldn't there be a co-ordination mechanism between Customs and DGFT?
Notifications should be issued simultaneously or only one authority should
be allowed to issue the notifications and clarifications and they should be
deemed to be issued by both. No such hope. Now DGFT has come up with a new
Public Notice to add ICD Nagpur to the list. This will <b>become operational
only when the CBEC also issues a circular which is sure to come within a few
days.</b> Till then? Why should two ministries issue the same order? That
is how the Government works.<br>
<br>
Exactly after a week of the DGFT Public Notice, the Board had come up with
the circular adding ICD Nagpur to the list and all the while, it seems there
was a container languishing in Nagpur!<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=25&filename=notification/custom/2005/cuscir05_010.htm">CBEC
CIRCULAR NO.10 /2005-Cus, Dated: February 22, 2005</a><br>
<br>
<b>Import of textiles - conditions</b><br>
<br>
The DGFT imposes certain conditions for import of textile and textile articles:-</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. they shall not contain any of the hazardous dyes whose handling, production,
carriage or use is prohibited by the Government of India;<br>
<br>
2. the import consignments shall be accompanied by a preshipment certificate
from a textile testing laboratory accredited to the National Accreditation
Agency of the Country of Origin.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2004/dgft04not026.htm">Notification
No 26/2004-09, Dated: February 22, 2005</a><br>
<br>
<font color="#FF0000"><b>Until tomorrow with more of DDT </b></font></font></p>
<p><font color="#FF0000"><b><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have
a Nice Day<br>
<br>
Mail your comments to </font></b></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </b></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>