TIOL-DDT 679 · 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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 679</font><br> 16.08.2007<br> Thursday</b></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Refund of excise duty - diplomatic missions – new procedure</b> </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The refund claims on purchase of excisable goods by diplomatic missions are received initially by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), and are forwarded with required certification to the offices of the jurisdictional Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. The claim is processed and refund cheques are sent to MEA for onward transmission to the diplomatic missions/posts. However, certain instances were brought to the notice of the Board, where even though refund claims were submitted to the MEA by the diplomatic missions within one year, but the claims became time-barred, as there was a delay in forwarding the said claims to the jurisdictional Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">To avoid this kind of problems, the CBEC has designated the officer in MEA receiving the refund claim as an AC/DC of Central Excise and so now the time clock will start ticking immediately after this MEA officer receivers the claim. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now Board has decided that the MEA has to forward the refund claim to the AC/DC concerned (Board says concerned AC) within thirty days. And if any interest is to be paid for delayed refund, the MEA will have to bear the interest for the period beyond thirty days it took to send the claim to the Revenue! May be there will be a big case between the MEA and MOF in the near future on this issue!</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2007/excircular853.htm" target="_blank">CIRCULAR NO. 853/11/2007-CX., Dated: august 13, 2007</a></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Jurisdictional changes in Customs – Pune CC gets Pune Customs</b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Pune Customs Commissionerate was under the Mumbai III CC, even though there is a CC in Pune! Now the Pune customs goes to the Pune CC. What is the logic in attaching Pune to Mumbai when there is a CC right in Pune. Only the Board will know!</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CC, Mumbai II has just lost jurisdiction over Mumbai Air Cargo, both imports and exports. Now he has jurisdiction over just two commissioners – Nhava Sheva – imports and exports.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What is Mumabi II CC's loss is Mumbai III CC's gain. Now he gets Mumbai air Cargo – imports and exports – Maybe a compensation for losing Pune!</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There is a CC, Central Excise in Cochin, but the Cochin Customs is under the control of CC, Bangalore. The basis for deciding jurisdiction seems to be anything other than public interest. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2007/cnt07_079.htm" target="_blank">NOTIFICATION NO. 79/2007-Cus.,(N.T.), Dated: August 10, 2007</a></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Foreign Trade Policy – “letter of credit” becomes ‘irrevocable commercial letter of credit'. </b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Para 1.5 of the <font color="#663399">FTP reads as, In case an export or import that is permitted freely under FTP is subsequently subjected to any restriction or regulation, such export or import will ordinarily be permitted notwithstanding such restriction or regulation, unless otherwise stipulated, provided that shipment of export or import is made within original validity with respect to available balance and time period of an <b>irrevocable letter of credit</b> established before date of imposition of such restriction. However, a time limit for operationalising such LCs may be prescribed.</font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is now <b><font color="#663399">‘irrevocable commercial letter of credit'</font></b><font color="#663399">.</font></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2007/dgft07not020.htm" target="_blank">NOTIFICATION NO. 20(RE-2006)/2004-2009, Dated: August 13, 2007</a></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Import condition not to apply to soyabean oil </b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“Condition No. 18 of Chapter 1A (General Notes Regarding Import Policy) notified vide Notification No.2 (RE-2006)/2004-2009 dated 7.4.2006 will not apply to import of Soyabean Oil till 31.03.2007.<strong></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>The condition stipulates that</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">18. Import of Genetically Modified Food, Feed, Genetically Modified Organism (GMOs) and Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) will be subject to the following conditions :</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(a) The import of GMOs / LMOs for the purpose of (i) R & D; (ii) Food; (iii) Feed; (iv) Processing in Bulk and (v) For Environment release will be governed by the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Rules 1989.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(b) The import of any Food, Feed, raw or processed or any ingredient of food, food additives or any food product that contains GM material and is being used either for Industrial production, Environmental release, or field application will be allowed only with the approval of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC).</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(c) Institutes / Companies who wish to import Genetically Modified material for R & D purposes will submit their proposal to the Review Committee for Genetic Modification (RCGM) under the Department of Bio-Technology. In case the Companies / Institutes use these Genetically Modified material for commercial purposes, approval of GEAC is also required.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(d) At the time of import all consignments containing products which have been subjected to Genetic Modification will carry a declaration stating that the product is Genetically Modified. In case a consignment does not carry such a declaration and is later found to contain Genetically Modified material, the importer is liable to penal action under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2007/dgft07not021.htm" target="_blank">NOTIFICATION NO. 21(RE-2006)/2004-2009, Dated: August 13, 2007</a></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>CIC imposes penalty on Revenue Department official.</b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Government officers who have contempt for irritating institutions like Tribunals and Courts, better watch out. The Central Information Commission is not going to watch helplessly the bureaucratic arrogance in disobeying laws. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The complainant, had filed his RTI-request dated 25.1.2007 before the CPIO. He received no reply from her. So he approached the Commission. The Commission issued a notice dated 1.6.2007 for hearing under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act to the CPIO. Ms.Amrita Mishra, the CPIO, on whom notice was served, has not submitted any response to the notice nor has she presented herself for hearing before the Commission. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As no response has been received from the CPIO, it is assumed that she has nothing to submit and so the Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. The CPIO Amrita Mishra has been directed to make the payment in three monthly instalments. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Commission directed the Secretary of the Department to ensure that the penalty imposed on the CPIO is duly collected from her and remitted to Government. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Commission had also explained the details of how the payment is to be recovered.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The penalty is to be debited to the pay and allowances of the CPIO commencing with the pay bill of August 2007. Rs. 25,000/- as penalty shall be collected in 3 monthly instalments, as follows (beginning August 2007) </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1st Instalment = Rs. 8,500/- </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2nd Instalment = Rs. 8,500/- </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3rd Instalment = Rs. 8,000/- </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The salary paying authority may be directed to effect these payments under intimation to the Commission. To avoid any confusion, the CIC has also given the accounting head into which the penalty has to be credited.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.hrindiaonline.com/laws4u/rti1.php?filename=rti/2007/2007-HRIOL-07-CIC.htm" target="_blank">CIC's F.No.CIC/AT/C/2007/00131 Dated, the 23rd July, 2007.</a></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>From our Legal Corner – Tomorrow's cases</b></font><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> <div align="center"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font></div> <font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><u1:p></u1:p> </font> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><u1:p></u1:p>Supreme Court </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#663399">Construction of road is works contract - deemed sale involved - quashing of SCN upheld : Apex Court</font></b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Even in a single and indivisible works contract there is a deemed sale of the goods which are involved in the execution of a works contract. Such a deemed sale has all the incidents of a sale of goods involved in the execution of a works contract where the contract is divisible into one for sale of goods and the other for supply of labour and services.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><u1:p><font color="#FF0000">Income Tax</font></b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#663399">If AO fails to give reasons for accepting assessee's contentions, invocation of powers u/s 263 cannot be faulted with : ITAT </font></b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">THE revisionary powers of Commissioner u/s 263 are to be exercised when the order of A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Whether, any kind of error comes within the scope of Sec.263 or there are some determinative factors, and what is the scope of power to be exercised by Commissioner under the said section are some of the issues which came up before the Tribunal for consideration in this case.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF0000">Central Excise <u1:p></u1:p></font><u1:p></u1:p></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Notification 8/2003-CE does not bar credit of inputs used in final products that are exported - Refund allowable under Rule 5 of CCR : Tribunal</b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><u1:p>Paragraph 2(iii) of Notification No. 8/2003CE provides that the manufacturer shall not avail the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 3 or Rule 11 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the specified goods cleared for home consumption but it could not be construed to mean that there exists a bar on availment of credit of inputs used in the final products, which are exported. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Furthermore, the terms and conditions set out in Notification 11/2002 (NT) dated 01/03/2002 did not bar the refund under rule 5 if the benefit of SSI notification 08/2003CE had been availed. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#663399">In absence of any application for ROM, it would be futile exercise on behalf of appellant to argue that order of Tribunal has held that appellant is not required to pay duty nor any penalty - Refund not admissible : CESTAT</font></b></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><u>See our columns tomorrow for the judgements</u></b></font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><u1:p></u1:p> </font> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until tomorrow with more DDT</font></p> <font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><u1:p></u1:p> </font> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice day.</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"><u>vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com</u></a></font></p> </body> </html>