TIOL-DDT 68 · 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
68</font><br>
4 3 2005<br>
Friday</b></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Exemption
to software - Government issues corrigendum to notification </b></font></p>
<p align="left"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yesterday
we carried a story that the exemption to software from the new CVD as announced
by the Finance Minister did not get notified. Government has come out with
a corrigendum to<br>
<br>
<b> substitute</b> <b>
with</b><br>
<br>
8524 31,
8524 31 19, 8524 31 90<br>
8524 40,
8524 40 19, 8524 40 90<br>
8524 91
8524 91 19, 8524 91 90<br>
<br>
in the notification No 24/2005-Cus dated 1.3.2005. These items deal with software
other than IT software. This would in effect mean that IT software, say falling
under 8524 40 11, is not covered under this notification and so will get exempted
from the new CVD imposed under Notification No. 19/2005. <br>
Government’s <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2005/corrig024.htm">corrigendum
in F. No. 334/1/2005-TRU.</a></font></p>
<p align="left"><font color="#006633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Notification
No. 21/2002 - Cus amended</b></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> ++ For imports
by leather footwear manufacturers, the import value is increased to 3% of
FOB from 1%.<br>
<br>
++ For imports by manufacturers of cotton made ups, the import value is FOB
value and not total value.<br>
<br>
++ For import of machinery, the condition that the goods are imported by a
manufacturer of leather products including footwear for his own use;, is deleted</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2005/ctariff05_026.htm">See
Notification No. 26 /2005-CUSTOMS, Dated : March 2, 2005</a><br>
<br>
Government amends DEPB notifications – see <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2005/ctariff05_027.htm">Notification
No. 27/2005-CUSTOMS, Dated: March 2, 2005</a><br>
<br>
<font color="#006633"><b>Refund/ Rebate claims – Board issues fresh
instructions</b></font><br>
<br>
++ Refund claims of above 5 Lakhs to be pre audited by Commissionerate.<br>
<br>
++ Refunds less than 5 Lakhs but more than Rs. 50,000 to be post audited in
the Commissionerate.<br>
<br>
++ For refunds above Rs 50,000, Orders In Original have to be passed and will
be reviewed in the Commissionerate.<br>
<br>
++ Review proceedings under Section 35E are not required for refunds exceeding
Rs. 5 Lakhs as they are pre audited.<br>
<br>
++ File to be sent to Commissionerate within a week of sanctioning the refund<br>
<br>
++ Commissionerate to finish audit within three months. <br>
<br>
Board’s clarifications are bound to bring in some uniformity in procedures
all over the country. But this whole concept of pre- audit seems to be against
the principles of adjudication. When an Assistant Commissioner passes an order,
how can it be previewed by the Commissioner and if the Commissioner raises
any objection, is the Assistant Commissioner bound by it?<br>
<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2005/excircular809.htm">See
CBEC CIRCULAR NO 809/6/2005-CX, Dated: March 1, 2005</a><br>
<br>
<font color="#006633"><b>Export of goods under Bond to Nepal and Bhutan –
Merchant Exporters also allowed</b></font><br>
<br>
There was a doubt whether exports to Nepal and Bhutan can be allowed by merchant
exporters. Though Notification No. 45/2001 CENT does not specify this, Board
clarifies that notification No. 45/2001-CE (NT) dated 26th June, 2001 for
export under Bond to Nepal and Bhutan applies to both merchant-exporters and
manufacturer-exporters.<br>
<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2005/excircular810.htm">See
CBEC CIRCULAR NO 810/6/2005-CX, Dated: March 1, 2005</a><br>
<br>
<font color="#006633"><b>Slitting of HR/CR coils of Iron & Steel Sheets
into strips would not amount to manufacture</b></font><br>
<br>
Board had in circular No. 584/21/2001-CX dated 7.9.2001, clarified that cutting
of HR/CR coils of iron or non-alloy steel into sheets or slitting into strips
of lesser width; or slitting of sheets into strips will amount to manufacture
if the resultant product is classifiable under different sub-heading of the
Central Excise Tariff. This circular was quashed by the Delhi High Court and
the departmental was dismissed by the Supreme Court. So now the Board has
withdrawn the 2001 circular.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2005/excircular811.htm">See
CBEC CIRCULAR NO 811/6/2005-CX, Dated: March 2, 2005</a></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#006633">Export
of Services - Rules notified</font></b><br>
<br>
Government has notified the Export of Services Rules 2005. Services partly
provided in India and partly abroad will be deemed as exports. Export of services
can be done without payment of tax and if tax is paid, rebate will be given.
Services for which payment is received in convertible foreign exchange are
already exempted. Further export cargo is also exempted. With the notification
of these rules, the two notifications dealing with export cargo and receipts
in foreign exchange are rescinded. Consequently Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit
Rules is amended to provide for refund of Service Tax credit when services
are exported. But strangely Rule 5 allows refund only to a manufacturer. It
is beyond logic why this is not allowed to a service provider.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=40&filename=notification/servicetax/2005/stnot05_09.htm">NOTIFICATION
NO 9</a> and <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=40&filename=notification/servicetax/2005/stnot05_10.htm">10
/2005-Service Tax, Dated : March 3, 2005<br>
</a><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</font></b></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<b>to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </b> </font> </p>
</div>
</body>
</html>