TIOL-DDT 793 · 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 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 793 </font><font size="3"></font><font size="2"><br>
30.01.2008 <br>
Wednesday </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Importability of Restricted Goods under the Served from India Scheme ( SFIS ) and other Schemes under Chapter 3 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) - CBEC clarifies </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Recently, the DRI has brought to the notice of the Board several cases of import of restricted items under the Served from India Scheme in violation of the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy and the customs notification. It is suspected that similar misuse may be taking place under other reward schemes also. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The matter has been examined by the Board. In terms of Para 3.6.4.5 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) the duty credit earned under SFIS may be used for import of items mentioned therein provided they are freely importable under ITC( HS) Classification of Export and Import Items. Similar provisions are there in the FTP under the Target Plus Scheme ( Para 3.7.6 of the relevant Policy), and other Schemes under Chapter 3 of the present Policy such as, VKGUY , Focus Market Scheme and Focus Product Scheme ( Para 3.12.4). The position is thus clear that only freely importable items under ITC( HS) are permitted for clearance under the said schemes. The notifications issued to operationalise these schemes also refer to the relevant paragraphs of the Policy covering the schemes. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In view of this, Board wants that the imports under the Schemes mentioned above may be carefully scrutinized with reference to the provisions of the FTP, Handbook of Procedures, the relevant customs notifications and Board's Circulars on the subject so as to ensure that the laid down provisions are fully complied with. <strong><font color="#FF6633">In particular, it may be ensured that the goods restricted for import are not allowed clearance under the schemes. </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Board also wants a suitable Public Notice and Standing Order to be issued for the guidance of the trade and staff. Difficulties faced, if any, in implementation of the Circular may be brought to the notice of the Board at an early date. </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=25&filename=notification/custom/2008/cuscir08_03.htm" target="_blank">CBEC CIRCULAR NO. 3/2008- Cus . Dated 24th January, 2008 </a></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Exchange rates for February 2008 notified </strong></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Government has notified the exchange rates for imports and exports with effect from 1.02.2008. DDT readers will remember that now there is only one notification for both imports and exports instead of two notifications one each for exports and imports. </font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2008/cnt08_005.htm" target="_blank">Notification NO . 5/2008- Cus .( NT) Dated 28 th January, 2008 </a></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Wealth tax- an archaic tax? </strong></font></p>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you know that most of us are violators of the provisions of Wealth Tax Act provisions? If your wealth is worth more than fifteen lakhs, you are required to pay wealth tax and most of us are offenders. We asked our expert, Sivakumar to comment on the issue and today we carry his scholarly piece on the topic in our Budget Run Up. </font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Jurispruden</font> <font color="#FF6633" size="4">tiol –</font><font color="#006600"> Tomorrow's cases </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><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><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><strong><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></strong></b></font></b></font></b></font></b></font></b></font></b></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></p>
<p> </p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>CE/ Customs/ FEMA - Cognizance of offence - Taking of cognizance is a sine qua non or condition precedent for holding a valid trial - Cognizance is taken of an offence and not of an offender : Supreme Court </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">THE issue before the Supreme Court is whether issuance of process in a criminal case is one and the same thing or can be equated with taking cognizance by a Criminal Court. And if the period of initiation of criminal proceedings has elapsed at the time of issue of process by a Court, the proceedings should be quashed as barred by limitation? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Service Tax </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">Service Tax paid for a wrong service does not cease to be Service Tax – rigours of Section 11B applicable for refund - CESTAT </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">THE</font></strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> appellants had undertaken maintenance of certain apartments and collected maintenance charges from the apartment owners from April, 2000 to January, 2005. They got themselves registered as Real Estate Agent in terms of Section 65 (88) of the Finance Act, 1994 in March, 2001 and were paying service tax regularly since then upto January, 2005. The Central Government proposed to levy service tax on repairs and maintenance of immovable property in the 2005 budget, which fact became known to the appellants towards the end of February, 2005 (the proposal became law with effect from 16.06.2005). The appellants accordingly applied for cancellation of their registration as Real Estate Agent in March, 2005. Simultaneously, they also applied for refund of the service tax which they had paid for the period April, 2000 to January, 2005. This claim was made under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. The original authority rejected the claim for refund for the prescribed period of limitation (March, 2004 – January, 2005) on merits. As for the claim for refund for the period prior to March, 2004, that authority rejected it as time-barred. Aggrieved by the decision of the original authority, the party preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter held in favour of the assessee on the question whether they were eligible for refund for the prescribed period. The appellate authority, however, remanded the case to the original authority on the question of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved by the adverse decision of the appellate authority for the period prior to March, 2004, the party has filed the present appeal. The appellants have since obtained refund of Rs. 78,390/- for the prescribed period from the Deputy Commissioner in terms of order-in-Original No.2 /2005-06-Refund ( STC ) dated 28.02.2006. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Central Excise </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">Appellants are to be blamed for not conducting an inspection of the Goods Inspection Register seized by department or taking a copy of the same – Demand on ' clandestine removal ' sustained by Tribunal </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">PETITIONERS</font></strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> sought a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 07-04-2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi , rejecting the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as the delay in filing the Appeals were not explained by the petitioners. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Income Tax </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Big
win for Income Tax Department; Interest paid on borrowed capital for acquisition
of new machinery before same is first put to use, cannot be claimed as
revenue expenditure even as extension of existing business; to be added
to ' actual cost ' of assets : P & H High Court Larger Bench </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">FOR the Income Tax Department, the latest ruling of the Larger Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court amounts to a big win. And, at the centre of the dispute was whether the interest paid on borrowed capital for purchasing new plant and machinery before the same is put to use is revenue expenditure or to be added to the ' actual cost ' of the asset? What further complicated the issue was the fact that the assessee was a running company and wanted to set up a new plant by buying new machinery out of borrowed capital. Since the new production plant was mere an extension of the existing business, the assessee treated the interest payment as revenue expenditure. Although to curb tax avoidance the CBDT had inserted explanation 8 to Sec 43(1) vide Finance Act, 1986 w e f April 1, 1974 and also inserted a proviso to Sec 36(1)(iii) vide Finance Act, 2003 to make it clear that no deduction shall be allowed for interest paid, in respect of capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset for extension of existing business or profession (whether capitalized in the books of account or not) and such amount of interest is for the period beginning from the date on which the capital was borrowed for acquisition of the asset till the date on which such asset was first put to use. Given that the laws were so unambiguous and clear what was the actual issue before the Larger Bench? It was the interpretation of the converse whether the law also meant that the interest payment before the capital assets are put to use are to be added to the ' actual cost ' of the assets or to be allowed as revenue expenditure? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#6633CC" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements </strong></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 color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </a></font></p>
</body>
</html>