TIOL-DDT 696 · 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="left"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 696 </font><br>
11.09.2007 <br>
Tuesday</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Goods destroyed - remission granted, but reverse the Cenvat Credit - Board overrules Larger Bench. </font></strong></p>
<p align="left"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong>For a recap of the issue, let's read what we reported in January 2007. </strong></font></p>
<p align="left"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font color="#7030A0">THE issue is as old as the Credit Rules themselves.</font></font></p>
<p align="left"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Final products are destroyed in fire & Excise duty is remitted thereon - whether Modvat/Cenvat credit availed on inputs used in manufacture is to be reversed?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you are a factory owner and there is a fire in the factory, what would you do? Obviously, apart from seeking ways to extinguish the fire/calling the fire brigade, police personnel and ensuring that there is no loss of human life, you start figuring the losses. After the fire is extinguished and you are normal, get hold of the police/fire brigade panchanama mentioning the list of the valuable items & property destroyed in fire with an approximate value of the loss & also simultaneously inform the insurance company, obviously if you have insured the factory, machinery & the stocks [list is not exhaustive]. Ensure that everything is clearly brought on record so that your claim is honored to your satisfaction. At the same time, never forget the Central Excise authorities for this is the department you have to tackle with an <b>ubercool</b> attitude! <b>"Intimate"</b> them! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The reason being, your finished goods that were destroyed in fire need to be remitted of its duty. Simply because, Excise duty is on manufacture and payment of duty, as a facilitation measure, is allowed to be paid on removal from the factory. Make an application to the Commissioner & if he is satisfied that the goods have been destroyed or lost by natural cause or due to an unavoidable accident, he will grant remission of duty due on the said finished goods destroyed in fire. Obviously, this exercise may take some days or months or some years for that matter! <b>It depends.</b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> And, if you have availed credit on inputs which went into the manufacture of those "unfortunate finished goods which were reduced to ashes", just forget it (remission) because apart from the Damocles sword of being held liable to pay Excise duty on the destroyed goods, you may also be served with another notice demanding the modvat/cenvat credit contained in the said finished goods.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> If at all the magnanimous Commissioner grants remission of duty as sought by you, provided of course that the Insurance company has compensated you only for the value of the finished goods minus excise duty, rest assured that the demand seeking Modvat/cenvat credit is ready for issuance by the jurisdictional Superintendent for he is governed by the limitation clause under the Act/Rules! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> This
Modvat issue first found its mention in the year 1996 in the Tribunal decision
in Inalsa Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi <b>(</b></font><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=52&filename=legal/cestat/2002/2002-TIOL-377-CESTAT-DEL.htm">2002-TIOL-377-CESTAT-DEL</a></font><b><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">)</font></b><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> which held that <b>since
remission of duty is not equivalent to an exemption from duty, there is
no cause for seeking any Modvat reversal.</b> </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Seven
years down the line, in the case of Mafatlal Industries vs. CCE, Ahmedabad,
<b>(</b></font><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=52&filename=legal/cestat/2003/2003-TIOL-290-CESTAT-MUM.htm">2003-TIOL-290-CESTAT-MUM</a></font><b><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">)</font></b><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">,
the West Zonal Bench agreed with the Inalsa decision that remission of duty
on the finished goods cannot be equated with exemption to goods and that
the inputs can be considered to have been put to the intended use of manufacturing
of final products, <b>but
held</b> as under - "The intention of the Modvat scheme is that the duty paid
on inputs can be taken credit for paying duty on the finished goods to give relief
against the cascading effect of excise duty. When the duty on the finished goods
is being remitted, <b>allowing credit of duty paid on inputs would confer a totally
unintended benefit on the appellants.</b> Allowing such credit when the finished
goods suffer no duty would amount to allowing a cash refund as it can be utilised
for paying duty on other goods. There is no provision in the Central Excise Rules
to either allow refund of duty paid on inputs or to grant remission of such input
duty when the finished goods made from such inputs get burnt/destroyed in fire.
The Modvat scheme cannot be interpreted in a way to allow such a refund/remission
of duty on the inputs which is not provided for in the Rules." </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Net result was that Modvat credit was held to be recoverable in respect of the inputs which were contained in the finished goods destroyed in fire & in respect of which remission was granted. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The ever-vigilant Board which had vide its earlier Circular 650/41/2002-CX dated 07.08.2002 clarified that <b>Modvat/Cenvat
credit of duty paid on the inputs contained in finished products on which
duty remission has been granted shall be admissible and reversal thereof
shall not be necessary & suitably amended paragraph 2.4 of Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Manual</b> committed a volte-face and came out with a new Circular 800/33/2004-CX dated 01.10.2004 pursuant to this decision in Mafatlal Industries. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The
clarification ends thus - " In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the
case of Mafatlal Industries, Board has reconsidered the issue of admissibility
of Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods
on which duty has been remitted. Accordingly, Board's Circular No. 650/41/2002-CX.,
dated 7-8-2002 is hereby withdrawn. <b>It
is clarified that the credit of the excise duty paid on inputs used in
the manufacture of the finished goods on which the duty has been remitted
due to damage or destruction etc. is not permissible and the dues with
interest should be recovered."</b> </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The issue once again echoed in the Tribunal in the case of Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd <b>(</b></font><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=52&filename=legal/cestat/2003/2003-TIOL-105-CESTAT-DEL.htm">2003-TIOL-105-CESTAT-DEL</a></font><b><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">)</font></b><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> when the Tribunal decision in Inalsa Ltd was followed, supported by the Board's
Circular dated 07.08.2002. Needless to say, the Mafatlal decision though
delivered did not find a mention in the arguments advanced before the Tribunal. <b>Even
otherwise, the Board Circular dated 07.08.2002 was still alive and kicking
and was withdrawn only in October 2004. </b></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Incidentally, in an issue concerning modvat credit in respect of inputs issued for manufacture but destroyed in fire, the Tribunal in the case of Indchem Electronics <b>(</b></font><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=52&filename=legal/cestat/2002/2002-TIOL-181-CESTAT-MAD.htm">2002-TIOL-181-CESTAT-MAD</a></font><b><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">)</font></b><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> held that modvat credit is not deniable in such a circumstance. Notably,
the SLP filed by the Revenue was dismissed by the Supreme Court in the year
2003. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> In view of the conflicting decisions in Mafatlal Industries & Electrolux Kelvinator, the matter came to be referred to the Larger Bench headed by the Vice President, in the case of Grasim Industries vs. CCE, Indore. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> This order dated 7th August 2006, but certified and circulated only on 16 th January this year, [<b>natural
causes, that is</b>] , after narrating the contents of the earlier rule 49 of CER, 1944 and the current rule 21 of the CER, 2002, concerning remission of duty, and the ratio contained in the decisions cited above, concludes thus - Reading of <b>rules
under which remission is granted in respect of goods</b> which were lost or destroyed by natural cause or by natural accident, does not provide any condition regarding reversal of credit taken in respect of inputs used on such goods , hence we are unable to support the view taken in the case of Mafatlal Industries whereby it has been that assessee has to reverse the credit taken of inputs used in such goods on which remission is granted. Therefore, we approve the view of the Tribunal taken on the case of Inalsa Ltd in this regard." </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> So simple! <font color="#000000">See</font> </font><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=52&filename=legal/cestat/2007/2007-TIOL-135-CESTAT-DEL-LB.htm">2007-TIOL-135-CESTAT-DEL-LB</a></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font color="#000000">So
what does the Government do? Now they have amended the Cenvat Credit Rules
to stipulate that where remission is granted, credit has to be reversed. </font></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#000000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
A graceful Board could have allowed this credit. After all it is not every day that goods get destroyed and when they do get destroyed the department should be able to share the agony and provide a little succour.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#000000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> An alert Netizen wrote to us,</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> First circular no. 650 was issued in August 2002 based on the Kirloskar Electric Case from Bangalore Tribunal (which relied on the Inalsa case from Delhi Tribunal) to allow Cenvat credit on such inputs. Later when Mumbai Tribunal ruled in favour of the Revenue in Mafatlal case Board reversed its stand and issued a circular 800 in October 2004. In between and thereafter there were innumerable judgments on this issue which have gone in favour of the assessee. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> After three years, the Ministry decides to insert a provision to recover Cenvat credit on the inputs used in the goods where remission of duty is sought which is applicable from September 7, 2007. At least from hereafter there is clarity in law and reversal is required (this rule is applicable prospectively only). Is it an end to the controversy? Not really because Board directed the field formations to recover Cenvat credit in circular 800. Now what will be the fate of demands raised post circular 800? The Board could have amended the CCR 04 at that time itself instead of waiting for three years and saved a lot in litigation.</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Also
see our article - <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=1608">CBEC:
THE PHOENIX SANCTUARY!</a></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=30&filename=notification/excise/2007/exnt07_33.htm" target="_blank">NOTIFICATION NO. 33/2007-CX., (N.T.), Dated: September 7, 2007 </a></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong>Speedy justice - Government measures</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The Law minister informed the Rajya Sabha yesterday that the Government had taken the following measures:-</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"> ++ Review of the Judge strength in High Courts from time to time and prompt action for filling the vacancies. (<font color="#7030A0">He can start with filling up the vacancies immediately</font>)
</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"> ++ The term of 1562 Fast Track Courts, which were functional in the States as on March 31, 2005 has been extended for another five years i.e. upto March 31, 2010.
</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"> ++ With a view to ensuring expeditious disposal of civil cases, the Civil Procedure Code has been amended which, inter-alia, limits the number of adjournments which can be granted to a party to three.
</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"> ++ With a view to ensuring speedy disposal of criminal cases, appropriate changes have been made in the Code of Criminal Procedure through Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, inter-alia, introducing the concept of plea bargaining.
</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"> ++ Modernization of the judicial infrastructure through computerization of courts.
</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"> ++ Government has introduced a Bill to establish Gram Nyayalalyas in the rural areas.</font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>No Supreme Court Bench outside Delhi</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The Supreme Court Full court, in its meeting held on August 7, 2007 found no justification for deviating from its earlier resolution on the subject and did not favour setting up of Benches of the Supreme Court outside Delhi. The Government does not propose to bring an amendment to the Constitution, against the wish of the Supreme Court, the Law Minister informed Parliament yesterday.</font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong>PC signs DTAA with Mexico</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The Finance Minister signed yesterday with Mexico's Foreign Minister, Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The DTAA between India and Mexico</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">1. will cover in the case of India, income-tax including any surcharge thereon and in the case of Mexico, the federal income-tax.
</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">2.provides for taxation of dividend, interest, royalties and fees for technical services-both in the country of residence as well as the country of source. However, the rate of tax in the country of source shall not exceed ten percent of the gross amount of payment in case the beneficial owner of the payments is a resident of the other Contracting State.
</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"> 3.provides that capital gains from alienation of shares of a company shall be taxable in the country where the company is a resident.
</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"> 4.Will avoid double taxation by one country giving credit for taxes paid by its residents in the other country.
</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">5. Will provide exchange of information in cases which are under investigation in either of the two countries.
</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"> 6.Will ensure that both countries assist each other in collection of revenue claims.</font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong>From our Legal Corner - tomorrow's cases</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><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></b></font></strong></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"> <strong>Deduction u/s 43B - Nexus between duty and taxes actually paid and accrual of liability not required - Deduction allowable regardless of previous year; No deduction on unutilised modvat credit lying in account on last day of FY : Five-Member ITAT Special Bench</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> THE two ticklish issues before the Five-Member Special Bench of the Tribunal were : </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"> 1.Whether deduction for tax, duty etc. is allowable u/s. 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on payment basis before incurring the liability to pay such amounts?
</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"> 2.Whether Modvat Credit available to the assessee as on the last day of the previous year amounts to payment of Central Excise duty u/s. 43B?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Before we go to the arguments and counter-arguments and then the observation of the bench let's take a look at the background in which this Section was inserted into the Act. While tabling the Finance Bill 1983, the Finance Minister stated that </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#7030A0" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> "Several cases have come to the notice where taxpayers do not discharge the statutory liability such as in respect of Excise duty, employer's provident fund, employees State Insurance scheme, for long period of time. For the purpose of their Income-tax assessment, they nevertheless claim the liability as deduction even as they take resort to legal action, thus depriving the Government all its dues while enjoying the benefit of non-payment. To curb such practices, I propose to provide that irrespective of the method of accounting followed by the taxpayers a statutory liability will be allowed as a deduction in computing the taxable profit only in the year and to the extent it is actually paid." </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> In reference to this, the ITAT President, Mr Vimal Gandhi, notes that the purpose of the Legislation and the mischief it sought to check is abundantly clear and needs no elaboration. Only thing to be highlighted is that there is no reference to any condition to establish, "accrual of liability" for the claim of deduction. Only actual payment is insisted upon.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong><font color="#FF0000">Central Excise</font> </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong>Chemical examiner's report is binding on the department; Mere misstatement is not enough to attract extended limitation and penalty; there should be wilful suppression; No penalty when duty demand is quashed; Mere fact that both the registered offices and factories are situated in the same premises would not make them related - Supreme Court</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The Show Cause Notice was issued in 1993. The assessee had to fight the battle for 14 long years! And that too an SSI unit! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong>Consignor alleged guilty of fraud - Cenvat Credit availed by consignee on basis of 'duty paying documents' - Matter remanded for deciding both cases together : Tribunal</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong><font color="#663399">Today </font></strong>we
carry the Tribunal decision in the case of Rishabh Industries with the caption "Fraudulent
credit taken by consignor and duty payment effected therefrom while removing
manufactured goods - Credit availed by consignee on such inputs proper as
transaction is bonafide - Tribunal ". </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> The Tribunal had in that case held that since the transaction was bonafide, the consignee could not be held ineligible to the Cenvat credit even if the consignor had utilized the fraudulently availed credit. While arriving at such a conclusion, the Bench had placed ample reliance on the Board Circular 766/82/2003-CX dated 15.12.2003 and also the Tribunal decision in R.S.Industries, which apparently squarely covered the issue. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> In the present case, the facts are almost similar - a confirmed demand of Rs.46,95,820/- (representing inadmissible cenvat credit availed by the applicants on the strength of supplementary invoices issued by M/s New Bombay Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd.) together with interest and penalty of Rs. One lakh imposed upon the appellant and Rs. 25,000/- upon the Director. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong>Customs</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong>In case of a COFEPOSA absconder, the live link is not snapped : Bombay HC</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <strong><font color="#663399">ANOTHER COFEPOSA</font></strong> detention order was challenged in the High Court. Yet again it was argued that the detaining authority had allegedly not applied his/her mind before passing the said detention order . And, well!!! The perennial evergreen 'Dev Anand' as far as challenge to grounds of detention is concerned - gross delay in passing detention order. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><u><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> See our columns tomorrow for the judgments</font></strong></u></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font color="#FF6666">Until Tomorrow with more DDT</font></font></p>
<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="vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </a></font></p>
</body>
</html>