TIOL-DDT 923 · 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"><strong><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 923</font> <br> 05.08.2008 <br> Tuesday </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Exemption from Additional Customs Duty for goods imported for subsequent sale – Refund claim to be filed within a year. </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The government had, by Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007, exempted goods imported for subsequent sale in India, the whole of Additional Customs Duty under section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, to counter balance the sales tax, VAT etc., The exemption works in a roundabout way of first paying the duty and then claiming refund. And the refund is subject to conditions like the Additional Duty is not claimed as a credit and the importer paying the appropriate sales tax/VAT when the goods are sold. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By Circular No. 6/2008 dated 28.04.2008, the CBEC issued further clarifications and instructed, </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">Time – Limit: Though no time limit is fixed in the notification:</font></strong> Taking into account various factors, it has been decided to permit importers to file claims under the above exemption upto a period of one year from the date of payment of duty. <strong>Necessary change in the notification is being made </strong> so as to incorporate a specific provision prescribing maximum time limit of one year from the date of payment of duty, within which the refund could be filed by any person. Unsold stocks would not be eligible for refunds. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We had then asked, <strong>“Can a Circular override an exemption notification?”</strong> and gently reminded the Board that the clock is ticking for this amendment. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It took the Government four months to notify the time limit. Now Notification No. 102/2007 is amended to stipulate that the refund claim has to be filed <em>before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of the said additional duty of customs </em>. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please see <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=7230" target="_blank">DDT 854 - 29.04.2008</a> </strong> and <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=6082" target="_blank">DDT 701 - 18.09.2007</a> </strong></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=23&filename=notification/custom/2008/ctariff08_093.htm" target="_blank">Notification NO. 93/2008-Cus., Dated: August 1, 2008 </a></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Anti Dumping Duty on vitrified and porcelain tiles </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anti Dumping Duty on imports of vitrified and porcelain tiles, other than vitrified industrial tiles originating in, or exported from, the People's Republic of China (China PR) and United Arab Emirates was imposed by Notification No. 73/2003-Customs, dated the 1 st May, 2003. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On a sunset review of the anti dumping duty, the Designated Authority had concluded that there is no dumping taking place from United Arab Emirates , but if the duty is withdrawn, the goods are likely to enter Indian market at dumped prices from China . </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So the anti dumping duty was freshly imposed on the goods originating from China , by Notification No. 82/2008 – Cus dated 27.06.2008. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Designated Authority on the basis of its new shipper review final findings, held that the dumping margin of the vitrified porcelain tiles manufactured by M/s Foshan Nanhai Jing Yu Ceramics Ltd. Foshan China, People's Republic of China and exported by M/s Shye International, Hong Kong was found to be de minimis and recommended that no anti-dumping duty be imposed on imports of said vitrified or porcelain tiles produced by M/s Foshan Nanhai Jing Yu Ceramics Ltd, Foshan China, People's Republic of China and exported by M/s Shye International, Hong Kong. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Based on the recommendations of the DA, the Government has exempted the above parties from the Anti Dumping Duty. </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=23&filename=notification/custom/2008/ctariff08_094.htm" target="_blank">Notification NO. 94/2008-Cus., Dated: August 1, 2008 </a></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Adverse entries in Annual Confidential Reports – Central Excise Officer loses in Supreme Court – Chief Commissioner is a very senior officer. </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anil Mishra was a Central Excise Deputy Commissioner, who had some adverse entries in his Annual Confidential report for the year 2000-01. His appeals to the Chief Commissioner and the Government were rejected and so were his appeals in the CAT and High Court. He was not successful in the Supreme Court either. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Supreme Court observed, “three senior officers have considered the appellant's case and rejected the same. We cannot sit as an appellate authority over these orders. The scope of judicial review of administrative orders is limited” </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The officer's record was good prior to and after the period 2000-01 was good, but the Supreme Court declined to consider this issue as this was not raised either before the CAT or the High Court. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Supreme Court further observed, “The Chief Commissioner and the Central Government are very high authorities and they have considered the representations of the appellant. No bias has been attributed to the Chief Commissioner or to the Central Government.” and dismissed the officer's appeal. </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=50&filename=legal/sc/2008/2008-TIOL-145-SC-MISC.htm" target="_blank">Click here for the full text of the order </a></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Missing appeal file – CIC asks Central Excise Commissioner (Appeals) to reconstruct file </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">An assessee filed four appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), Kolkata in the year 1992. During the last 16 years, the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) had been bifurcated and trifurcated several times and the appellant should now fall under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals), Ranchi. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not being able to know what happened to his appeals, the poor assessee approached the Central Information Commission, which was very sympathetic and observed, “Commission understands the anguish and the frustration of the appellant whose appeals were never resolved even though they were properly filed. An appeal under the Central Excise Act is a quasi-judicial action and it is altogether surprising as to how these never received the requisite attention, much less resolution for more than 16 years. However, at this distance of time, it will be useless to cry over the spilt milk.” </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So the Commission passed the following order, </font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“Considering the peculiar circumstances of this case, the matter is remitted back to Dr.G.Sreekumar Menon , Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ranchi with a direction to give a hearing to the appellant and initiate the process of reconstructing the records and to provide a proper response to the appellant's RTI-queries. Since this process is likely to be slow, the Commissioner (Appeals) may take 90 days from the date of the receipt of this order to complete the work.” </font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now, can the CIC give directions to a Commissioner (Appeals) to reconstruct a file and then give a reply to the applicant? <strong>DDT </strong> spoke to several senior Central Excise officers and they were all aghast that the CIC could give such directions and were unanimous in their view that the CIC cannot assume such jurisdiction which it did not possess. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DDT </strong> also spoke to a veteran journalist in the taxation field who wholeheartedly supported the CIC order and said that if the information which ought to have been there was not there, the Commission was right in directing that the information had to be recreated. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Incidentally, in this case, the Department was represented by the Chief Commissioner. Chief Commissioner, as declared by the Supreme Court in the case mentioned above, is a very senior officer. And why did this very senior officer choose to represent the Department's case before the Commission? Absolutely nothing wrong – but they leave important cases with Crores of Revenue involved, to Inspectors and Assistant Commissioners before the Settlement Commission and CESTAT! </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=70&filename=pitara/sercaselaw/caselaw/2008/2008-TIOL-07-CIC.htm" target="_blank">Click here for the full text of the CIC order </a></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Bombay High Court also halts export duty on clearances to SEZs </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As pointed out by a Netizen, it is not absolute stay, but the fact is that many High Courts are granting interim orders against the export duty – we eagerly wait for the Government's response. </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=27&filename=legal/hc/2008/2008-TIOL-383-HC-MUM-SEZ.htm" target="_blank">Click here for the Bombay HC order </a></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Jurispruden<font color="#FF6633" size="5"> tiol</font></strong></font><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> – Tomorrow's cases</font></strong></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><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"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><b><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/ddt_hammer.jpg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="100" height="84" hspace="5" border="0" align="left"></b></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></font><font color="#663399">Central Excise</font> </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Cement damaged due to rains – Damage occurred due to unprecedented rains which is a natural cause - Remission of duty admissible: CESTAT </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The appellant's counsel recalled the fury of rains that lashed various parts of Tamil Nadu and the unprecedented damage it left in its trail. He pleaded that the appellant was also a victim of this fury and therefore rightly eligible for remission of duty. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's counsel and allowed the appeal of the appellant. The Commissioner's order demanding duty with interest and imposition of penalty was set aside providing respite to the appellant. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399">Customs </font> </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>No finding in SCN to show that appellants by their acts of omissions, commissions rendered imports liable for confiscation under Section 111 – Pre-deposit waived and stay granted: CESTAT </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The appellants were alleged to have aided import of goods by importers after availing DEPB benefits against forged TRAs received by them from Mumbai. These TRAs were manipulated so as to make it appear that these were issued by the Customs authorities at Nhava Sheva Port in relation to DEPB licenses registered there. These TRAs were accompanied by Xerox copies of those licenses also. The appellants were brokers who purchased the fabricated TRAs and transferred the same to the importers. DRI registered a case against the importers as well as the appellants. The Commissioner ordered that goods imported under such fabricated TRAs are liable for confiscation and proposed penalty in terms of Section 112 of the Customs Act. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399">Income Tax </font> </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Orders passed earlier by CIT(A) and Tribunal in quantum proceedings cannot be taken as conclusive for penalty proceedings - Quantum and penalty proceedings are distinct from each other - Penalty of Rs 3 Cr under s. 271(1)(c) set aside: ITAT </strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>HERE</strong> is a case where the assessee found himself pushed from the frying pan to fire. Finally the ITAT has to rescue him from the fire by quashing the penal proceedings initiated against them by the CIT(A) under s. 271(1)(c). </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#663399" 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 <strong>DDT </strong></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>