TIOL-DDT 666 · 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"><b><font color="#663399" size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">TIOL-DDT 666</font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
27.07.2007<br>
Friday</font></b></font></p>
<p align=center><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b> Reduction
Of Customs Duty On Palm Oils - Govt explains goof-up</b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A Government Press release says,</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On July 23, 2007, Government decided to reduce the import duty, inter alia, on palm oils as under:-</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ Crude palm oil including crude palmolein from 50% to 45%</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ Refined palm oil including RBDpalmolein from 57.5% to 52.5%.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Consequently, a press release was issued on the evening of July 23, 2007 by the Ministry of Finance to convey the decision of the Government. The press release correctly reflected the decision of the Government. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 87/2007 -Customs was issued in this regard on July 23, 2007 evening. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It was subsequently noticed that the notification issued inadvertently indicated the import duty on crude palm oil including crude palmolein to be 40% as against 45% decided by the Government. Immediately, on discovery of this inadvertent error, suitable corrigendum was issued to the notification on 25th July, 2007 morning, to reflect the correct position as had been decided by the Government. The position thus is that the import duty on crude palm oils including crude palmolein stands reduced to 45% and not 40%, with effect from 23rd July, 2007, and all imports on or after this date will attract 45% import duty. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There were clearances of palm oil for home consumption by four importers during the intervening period before the corrigendum was issued. <b><font color="#663399">Following the corrigendum, the four importers have agreed to pay duty at 45% and three of them have already done so. The fourth importer has agreed to pay the differential duty on July 27, 2007. Thus, there is no loss of revenue to the Government and no unintended benefit to any importer. Government regrets the mistake in the notification. </font></b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now this raises several questions:</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Which has more statutory relevance - press release or a notification?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Why should the importers agree to pay more duty than what was required as per the notification? They must have been <b><font color="#663399">gently</font></b> persuaded.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. Can a Notification be amended by a corrigendum?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. And can't the corrigendum at least be clear?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. Should the government adopt arm twisting to collect illegal duty from the importers just because they are vulnerable?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This only proves that collection of lakhs of Crores as taxes is not because of the babus but in spite of them!</font></p>
<p align=center><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>No IT returns in post offices this year - CBDT</b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In July 2006, the CBDT had authorised post offices to collect Income Tax returns, but this facility is not going to be extended this year. CBDT clarifies that this was a one-time measure taken in view of the circumstances prevailing at that time.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Department has made special arrangements for receiving returns by opening additional receipt counters in all the major cities. These counters will also remain open on 28th and 29th July, 2007 (Saturday & Sunday).</font></p>
<p align=center><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Beating our own record - yesterday's Supreme Court order reported today - we can't do better</b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#663399">TIOL's</font></b>efforts have been to bring to you the law fast and first and we have been fairly successful. Allow us to beat our trumpet. Today we are bringing you a Supreme Court judgement that was delivered yesterday, and with full analysis. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>KVSS - pending appeal - appeal filed after time limit expired - KVSS rejected on the ground that the appeal was time barred - CESTAT holds appeal was within time - KVSS has to be revived - Supreme Court</b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">An application under KVSS was rejected on the ground that the appeal was time barred. Later the Tribunal holds that the appeal was within time. The assessee asks for revival of the KVSS application, but departments saysKVSS is closed. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See the details in our <u><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=5827" target="_blank">Breaking News</a></u> today. </font></p>
<p align=center><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>From our Legal Corner - Monday's cases</b></font></p>
<p align=center><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><b><b><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/ddt_31.gif" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="191" height="160" hspace="5" border="0" align="left"></b></b></b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Income Tax</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Notice issued without application of mind - AO was not aware that amendment to Act was not retrospective - Profits from EoUs eligible for deduction - SCN quashed : Bombay High Court </b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Central Excise </strong></font></p>
<p align=center><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Clearances as such - Excess cenvat passed on - Sec 11D is not applicable- CESTAT</b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">AN assessee has unutilized cenvat credit because it has lot of exports. What to do with the excess credit? May be claim refund. But the assessee adopted a better method. It cleared the inputs "as such" at higher prices and paid higher excise duty - of course from the credit. The department smelled a rat, but then did not know how to catch it.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Service Tax </b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>ST - Courier Service - No requirement of payment in FC before June 16, 2005 - No tax leviable for export of services - Penalty of Rs 4.5 Cr is a savage one - Adjudicating authorities cannot go only by Board clarification, which is contrary to law : Tribunal </b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399">THE</font> </strong>appellants are providing taxable services under the category of "Courier Agency Services". Revenue proceeded against them on the ground that they did not pay Service Tax for the period from 15.3.2005 to 15.06.2005 on international consignments. According to the appellants, the international consignments during the relevant period were exempted under rule 4 of Export of Services Rules, 2005.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><u>See our columns Monday for the judgements</u></b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#FF6666">Until Monday with more DDT</font></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice Weekend.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><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>
</body>
</html>