TIOL-DDT 729 · 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 ><font size="2"><b><font color="#663399" size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">TIOL-DDT 729</font><font color="#663399" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></b></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>29.10.2007<br>
Monday</b> </font></p>
<p align=center ><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Indo-US Double Taxation Avoidance Convention (DTAC) - Suspension of Collection during Mutual Agreement Procedure - CBDT instructions</b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
Article 27 of the Indo-USA DTAC provides for Mutual Agreement Procedure (<st1:stockticker u1:st="on"><st1:stockticker
w:st="on">MAP) for avoidance of double taxation. Paragraph 4 of Article 27 authorises the competent authorities to develop appropriate bilateral procedures, conditions, methods and techniques for implementation of <st1:stockticker u1:st="on"><st1:stockticker w:st="on">MAP provided for in the Article. Accordingly, with a view to avoid the unintended hardship to the taxpayers, as well as for the efficient management of collection of revenue, the Competent Authorities of India and <st1:place u1:st="on"><st1:country-region u1:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region></st1:country-region> had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) regarding suspension of collection during the pendency of <st1:stockticker u1:st="on"><st1:stockticker
w:st="on">MAP.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This MoU was brought to the notice of field formation vide Instruction No.2/2003 dated 28.4.2003 (F.No.500/56/99-FTD) wherein it was stated that the collection of outstanding taxes in the case of a taxpayer, who is a resident of USA and whose request under <st1:stockticker u1:st="on"><st1:stockticker
w:st="on">MAP is under consideration of the Competent Authorities, shall be kept in abeyance subject to furnishing of a bank guarantee of an amount equal to the amount of tax under dispute and interest accruing thereon as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now
references have been received for extending the applicability of MoU to
Indian resident entities in cases where Mutual Agreement Procedure has
been invoked by the<st1:place u1:st="on"><st1:country-region u1:st="on"><st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"> US</st1:country-region></st1:country-region> resident.
In order to avoid hardship to Indian resident taxpayers especially in cases
involving transfer pricing, where the Indian resident entity is liable
to pay taxes on such income which may have been charged to tax in the hands
of the associated entity in USA, it has been decided to extend the applicability
of the MoU to such Indian resident entities during the course of the pendency
of the <st1:stockticker u1:st="on"><st1:stockticker
w:st="on">MAP invoked by a resident of USA. </font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On receipt of a formal request for suspension of collection of outstanding tax in terms of the MoU from a taxpayer being, a resident of USA or an Indian resident entity, in a case where <st1:stockticker u1:st="on"><st1:stockticker
w:st="on">MAP has been invoked through US Competent Authority and the same has been admitted by the Indian Competent Authority, the assessing officers are required to keep the enforcement of collection of outstanding taxes in abeyance in respect of such taxpayers-</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) after obtaining a confirmation regarding pendency of <st1:stockticker u1:st="on"><st1:stockticker
w:st="on">MAP from the Foreign Tax and Tax Research Division of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) on receipt of a bank guarantee in the model draft format annexed to the MOU for an amount calculated in accordance with the manner indicated therein.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CBDT has issued these instructions under section 119 of the Income-tax Act and the Board wants them to be brought to the notice of all the officers in the field.</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=67&filename=notification/cbdt/2007/instruct0710.htm" target="_blank">CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 10/2007, Dated: <st1:date ls="trans" Month="9" Day="23" Year="2007" u1:st="on"><st1:date
ls="trans" Month="9" Day="23" Year="2007" w:st="on">September 23, 2007</a></font></p>
<p align=center ><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Export of Cotton Bed Linen - DGFT amends HOP</b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The DGFT has amended the Handbook of Procedures, Vol.2, 2004-2009, incorporating Note No. <st1:metricconverter ProductID="20 in" w:st="on">20 in the General Note for Textiles (Product Code: J) by which,</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Advance Authorization for export of Cotton Bed Linen, Bed Covers, Bed Sets, Pillow Covers, Cushion Covers under (SION at S.No.sJ-1, J-28, J-30, J-40, J-49, J-73, J-91, J-108, J-109, J-119, J-123, J-129, J-312, J-314, J-316 & J-347) shall not be permitted under the generic entries for export of made-ups. </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=47&filename=notification/dgft/2007/dgft07pn075.htm" target="_blank">PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 75 (RE: 2007)/2004-2009, Dated: October 26 ,2007</a></font></p>
<p align=center ><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Bank Deposit schemes with lock-in period - RBI frowns</b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">RBI has noticed that some banks are offering special term deposit products to customers, in addition to regular term deposits, ranging from 300 days to five years, with the following features:</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">i. Lock-in periods ranging from 6 to 12 months;</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ii. During the lock-in period, premature withdrawal is not permitted. In case of premature withdrawal during the lock-in period, no interest is paid</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">iii. Rates of interest offered on these deposits are not in tune with the rates of interest on normal deposits</font></p>
<p align="justify" style='text-align:justify;'><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">iv. Part pre-payment is allowed by some banks, subject to certain conditions.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">RBI had earlier instructed <st2:Sn u1:st="on"><st2:Sn w:st="on">Banks</st2:Sn></st2:Sn> that before launching new domestic deposit mobilisation schemes with the approval of their respective Boards, they should ensure that the provisions of RBI directives on interest rates on deposits, premature withdrawal of term deposits, sanction of loans/advances against term deposits, etc., issued from time to time, are strictly adhered to. Any violation in this regard will be viewed seriously and may attract penalty under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per the instructions, no bank should discriminate in the matter of interest paid on deposits, between one deposit and another, accepted on the same date and for the same maturity, whether such deposits are accepted at the same office or at different offices of the bank, except in respect of fixed deposit schemes specifically for resident Indian senior citizens offering higher and fixed rates of interest as compared to normal deposits of any size, and single term deposits of Rs.15 lakh and above on which varying rates of interest may be permitted on the basis of size of the deposits.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">RBI now clarifies that special schemes, with lock-in periods and other features, which have been floated by some banks, are not in conformity with the instructions. Banks that have floated such deposit schemes are, therefore, advised to discontinue the schemes with immediate effect and report compliance.</font></p>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=wnew/depositschemes.htm" target="_blank">RBI/2007-2008/167 <u>DBOD.No.Dir.BC</u>. 39/13.03.00/2007-2008 Dated: <st1:date ls="trans" Month="10" Day="25" Year="2007" u1:st="on"><st1:date
ls="trans" Month="10" Day="25" Year="2007" w:st="on">October 25, 2007</a></font></p>
<p align=center ><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Section 12 of <st1:stockticker u1:st="on"><st1:stockticker
w:st="on">CEA'44 - Notification 68/63CE - case of missing Section 110A of Customs Act</b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A Netizen recently wrote to us highlighting one trans"Act"ual inadvertently missing amendment that has remained to be carried out in Notification 68/63CE, dated 4.5.1963 as amended. </font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><i>"By the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 [w.e.f 13.7.2006] a new section 110A was inserted in the Customs Act, 1962 & which reads - "Provisional Release of goods, documents and things seized pending adjudication - Any goods, documents or things seized under 110, may, pending the order of the adjudicating officer, be released to the owner on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the Commissioner of Customs may require."</i></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><i>Since in terms of Section 12 of the <st1:stockticker u1:st="on"><st1:stockticker
w:st="on">CEA'44, some provisions of Customs Act have been made applicable to the matters of Central Excise under notification 68/63CE & section 110 being one of them, it logically follows that section 110A inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006 should also find a place in this notification."</i> </font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">You are right Sir & thanks for bringing it to our notice too - the Board needs to take cognizance of this fact and do the needful. </font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But
then, under which section were the powers being exercised earlier? Probably,
from Board's own Supplementary Excise Manual which in Chapter 17, Part-I,
paragraph 3.2 says - "The power to release seized goods emanates from the
power to seize. The goods seized may be released provisionally under bond
in the Format specified under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944
[B-11 bond] along with 25% security or surety by the officer who is normally
competent to adjudicate the case."</font></p>
<p align=center ><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Central Excise Superintendent takes on Hyundai - thru <st1:stockticker u1:st="on"><st1:stockticker
w:st="on">RTI with CIC</b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><st1:PersonName u1:st="on"><st2:title u1:st="on"><st1:PersonName
w:st="on"><st2:title w:st="on">Mr.</st2:title> <st2:GivenName u1:st="on"><st2:GivenName
w:st="on">Samuel</st2:GivenName></st2:GivenName> <st2:middlename u1:st="on"><st2:middlename
w:st="on">C.</st2:middlename></st2:middlename> <st2:Sn u1:st="on"><st2:Sn
w:st="on">Wilson </st2:Sn></st2:Sn>is a Superintendent of Central Excise, working in Chennai. He says that he came to know that M/s.Hyundai Motor India Limited, Sriperumbudur during July 2004 to June 2006 had "drained the country's resources and several hundred Crores of Revenue. He took up this matter for investigation, "but all his efforts were stonewalled by the unit." He alleges that he "was taken to task for attempting to investigate." He, thereafter, filed a detailed letter before the Prime Minister with copies to the Finance Minister and the Chairman, CBEC, all dated 29.7.2006. He claims that no action followed.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On 16.10.2006, the appellant received a letter dated 10.10.2006 from CBEC "asking me to meet the local Chief Commissioner with all the details and assist him in the enquiry." He says that when he tried to meet the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, "he was rebuffed by the local Chief Commissioner." Thereafter, he informed this matter to the Finance Minister through his communication dated 20.10.2006. He filed his <st1:stockticker u1:st="on"><st1:stockticker w:st="on">RTI-application before the CPIO, Prime Minister's Office (PMO) on 3.2.2007 requesting information on action taken on his report dated 29.7.2006 addressed to the Prime Minister. He received a reply dated 5.3.2007 from the CPIO, PMO, Shri Kamal Dayani, that the report received at the PMO "got mixed up with papers" and could not be located. The CPIO promised to take up the matter further with the Department of Revenue on the basis of the copy of the original petition enclosed with the appellant's <st1:stockticker u1:st="on"><st1:stockticker
w:st="on">RTI-petition. The appellant's <st1:stockticker u1:st="on"><st1:stockticker w:st="on">RTI-petition was forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Revenue by the CPIO, PMO after 23 days "contrary to the provisions of section 6(3)". The appellant received no reply from the Secretary, Department of Revenue "even after a lapse of 50 days", which amounted to refusal of information as per Section 7(2). Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority (AA), PMO.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">He received a communication from Smt. Hemambika R. Priya. CPIO, CBEC, dated 12.4.2007, informing him that the contents of the appellant's petition were already examined and a reply was sent to him. He alleges that he had received no reply whatsoever. He thereafter wrote back to the CPIO, <st1:PersonName u1:st="on"><st2:GivenName u1:st="on"><st1:PersonName w:st="on"><st2:GivenName
w:st="on">Smt.Hemambika</st2:GivenName> <st2:middlename u1:st="on"><st2:middlename w:st="on">R.</st2:middlename></st2:middlename> <st2:Sn u1:st="on"><st2:Sn w:st="on">Priya</st2:Sn> requesting to send him a copy of the reply said to have been sent to the appellant earlier. On 30.4.2007, the appellant received an order from the AA, PMO, communicated by <st1:PersonName u1:st="on"><st2:GivenName u1:st="on"><st1:PersonName
w:st="on"><st2:GivenName w:st="on">Mr.Javed</st2:GivenName> <st2:Sn u1:st="on"><st2:Sn w:st="on">Usmai</st2:Sn>, CAPIO, PMO, which stated that no further action was called for on his appeal, which was being closed.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then he filed an appeal before the CPIO, CBEC, <st1:PersonName u1:st="on"><st2:GivenName u1:st="on"><st1:PersonName
w:st="on"><st2:GivenName w:st="on">Shri</st2:GivenName> <st2:middlename u1:st="on"><st2:middlename w:st="on">Sushil</st2:middlename> <st2:Sn u1:st="on"><st2:Sn w:st="on">Solanki</st2:Sn>. He received a communication from <st1:PersonName u1:st="on"><st2:GivenName u1:st="on"><st1:PersonName
w:st="on"><st2:GivenName w:st="on">Smt.Hemambika</st2:GivenName> <st2:middlename u1:st="on"><st2:middlename w:st="on">R.</st2:middlename></st2:middlename> <st2:Sn u1:st="on"><st2:Sn w:st="on">Priya</st2:Sn>, CPIO, CBEC on 7.5.2007. </font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">He has now approached the CIC with the complaint that he was being 'deceived' by the CPIO and the AA of the CBEC by giving to him vague and unrelated replies. The information requested by him is "Action taken on my report dt. 29.7.06 addressed to the Prime Minister and its present status. If closed, the basis on which the same has been closed and details of the same, along with file notings." </font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>The Commission observed,</b></font></p>
<div align="justify">
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> ++ A perusal of the records before me shows that the AA had very clearly informed the appellant that his petition about loss hundreds of crores of revenue to the State because of the action of the M/s.Hyundai Motor India Ltd. was examined and the conclusion of the Department was "that the views taken by the appellant are not as per the provisions of law".</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ The respondent-CPIO present during the hearing explained that the Department's conclusion was that after examining the communication of the appellant regarding the Hyundai Motor India Limited, it was not considered worth pursuing. And that is the information they have for the appellant.</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> ++ It is quite obvious that the appellant is interested in the Department pursuing action on his complaints against Hyundai Motor India Limited. The Department of Revenue is unwilling to do so, on the basis of the investigation they have carried out and they have informed the same to the appellant.</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">++ This Commission does not consider it necessary to examine whether or not the public authority is right in coming to the conclusion which they had as regards the appellant's complaint dated 29.7.2006. The requirement of the <st1:stockticker u1:st="on"><st1:stockticker
w:st="on">RTI Act is satisfied once the status report of action is communicated to the appellant. That having been done, the appellant is left with no ground to challenge the action.</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> ++ The respondents also pointed out that the copy of the note-sheets connected with the <st1:stockticker u1:st="on"><st1:stockticker
w:st="on">RTI-application of the appellant has already been provided to him.</font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> ++ In the Commission's judgement, this fully meets the disclosure requirement. The appeal fails.</font></p>
</div>
<p ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.hrindiaonline.com/laws4u/rti1.php?filename=rti/2007/2007-HRIOL-13-CIC.htm" target="_blank">CIC Order No. <u>F.No.CIC</u>/AT/A/2007/00849</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"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><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"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><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"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><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"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><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></b></font></strong></font></b></font></strong></font></b></font></strong></font></b></font></strong></font></b></font></strong></font></b></font></strong></font></b></font></strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Income Tax </b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#663399">Advance payment towards purchase of capital asset - deal cancelled but sum not refunded by seller - it's capital loss and cannot be allowed as business loss : Delhi HC</font></font></strong></p>
<p align="justify" ><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">HERE</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font></strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> is an interesting situation. The assessee decides to buy a building for expansion of office premises, make some advance and then decides to cancel the deal. But the seller declines to refund the advance. After a few years, the assessee has no choice but to write off the advance as bad debt. Now the question is : Is it a business loss or a capital loss? Answering this question the <st1:place u1:st="on"><st1:City u1:st="on">Delhi High Court held that since the advance payment was made for purchase of a capital asset, the loss partakes the character of capital in nature, and deduction cannot be allowed as business loss.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Supreme Court </b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#663399">Can States legislate on industrial alcohol? - To be decided by Larger Bench : SC</font></b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>THIS</b></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b> </b>is a State Excise case but several constitutional questions are raised. The Court must accept the position that the States have the power to regulate the use of alcohol and that power must include the power to make provisions to prevent and/or check industrial alcohol being used as intoxicating liquor. In para 64 of the judgment the Bench stated that it recognises the power of the State to regulate though perhaps not as emanation of police power, but as an expression of the sovereign power of the State.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>Central Excise </b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#663399">Goods cleared for export without payment of duty under bond - no proof submitted, hence duty confirmed - Appeal against such order does not lie before Tribunal : CESTAT</font></b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b>THIS</b></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b> </b>is a classic case of how an assessee suffers for no fault of his. The assessee exported goods without payment of duty under a bond. However, since he did not produce the necessary proof of export, a demand of duty was issued to and the same was confirmed. He failed to satisfy the first appellate authority and hence went in appeal before the Tribunal.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#663399">Excisability of waste and scrap of paper board - CEGAT has abruptly come to an abrupt conclusion - matter remanded : Supreme Court</font></b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DURING</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> </strong>investigation of the accounts of M/s Wimco Ltd. <ST1:CITY u2:st="on"><ST1:PLACE u2:st="on"><st1:place u1:st="on"><st1:City u1:st="on">Bareilli, the respondent in this Revenue appeal, departmental sleuths realised that the respondent was using paper and paper board for the manufacture of printed paper board boxes. During the course of manufacture of such boxes, waste/scrap/parings are generated, it was alleged that this waste was classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 4702.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act,1985 (in short the 'Tariff Act'). Scrutiny of records revealed that the respondent was selling this waste/scrap/parings. It was also noticed that they did not declare transactions of waste/scrap/parings, and did not file classification list under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short the 'Rules') and did not issue any invoice prescribed under Rule 52-A. Accordingly, a show cause notice (in short 'SCN') was issued to the respondent asking it to explain as to why duty amounting to Rs. 23,20,000/- should not be demanded and why penalty should not be imposed and why interest should not be charged.</font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><u>See our columns on tomorrow for the judgments</u></b></font></p>
<p align="justify" ><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until tomorrow with more DDT</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="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com</a></font></p>
</body>
</html>