TIOL-DDT 932 · 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 932 </font><br>
19.08.2008 <br>
Tuesday</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Goods required for mega power project – Excise exemption </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Government has exempted Goods required for setting up of an ultra mega power project based on super-critical coal-thermal technology, with installed capacity of 3960MW or above, from which power procurement has been tied up through tariff based competitive bidding, from excise duty subject to the condition that </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">a) such goods are exempted from the duties of customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act when imported into India; </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">b) an officer not below the rank of Chief Engineer in the Central Electricity Authority certifies that the said goods are required for the setting up of the said ultra mega power project under Government of India initiative, indicating the quantity, description, and specifications thereof; and </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">c) the Chief executive officer of the project furnishes an undertaking to the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction, to the effect that- </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">i. the said goods will be used only in the said project and not for any other use; and </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ii. in the event of non compliance of sub-clause (i) above, the project developer will pay the duty which would have been leviable at the time of clearance of goods, but for this exemption. </font></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<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/2008/etariff08_46.htm" target="_blank">Notification No. 46/2008-CX., Dated: August 14, 2008</a> </font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Import of rough diamond from Venezuela prohibited </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT</strong> has notified that “the import of rough diamond (HS Code 7102.10, 7102.21 and 7102.31) from Venezuela shall be prohibited in view of voluntary separation of Venezuela from the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) and to cease certification for export of its diamonds.” </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=45&filename=notification/dgft/2008/dgft08not030.htm" target="_blank">DGFT Notification No. 30 (RE-2008)/2004-2009, Dated: August 13, 2008</a> </font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>ST on GTA – Persistent Revenue ultimately loses in Supreme Court </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Service Tax </strong> on Goods Transport Operators was introduced with effect from 16.11.1997. But it was a jinxed tax right from the Day One. As the goods transport operators went on a nation-wide strike against the levy, the government brought a totally new and un-treaded path in the row to tax collection. Hitherto service tax was payable by a person providing a service. But in respect of service tax on goods transport, the government made the person who pays or was liable to pay the freight for the transportation of the goods, liable for payment of service tax. <br>
<br>
In about eight months, realisation dawned on the government that it was after all not really worthwhile to collect tax on goods transport. The whole tax was exempted with the effect from 2.6.1998. In effect the tax was in force from 16th November, 1997 to 1st June 1998. But the ghost of this tax has been doing rounds clanking chains of alarming notes. The government which was prepared to forego the revenue from tax on goods transport from 2nd June, 1998 was surprisingly adamant about this tax for a short period from November 1997 to June 1998. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">After retrospective amendments to the Act, the Government found itself in a weak spot that the amendment did not really help. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In an article in <strong>TIOL </strong> about five years ago, we commented, </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can somebody tell the Honourable Finance Minister that there was retrospective bungling in law making and can the FM tell Parliament that in spite of retrospective amendment, the law was not good enough to rope in goods transporters? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now finally the Supreme Court has put the issue to rest by its judgement delivered yesterday, which we bring you today.Please see our <strong><a href="http://taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=7738" target="_blank">BREAKING NEWS</a> </strong> today. </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=1369">Service
tax on goods transport stranded on the highway?</a> and <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=435">SERVICE
TAX ON GOODS TRANSPORT: RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT DOES NOT HELP REVENUE!</a> </font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Jurispruden</font><font color="#FF6633" size="5">tiol</font><font color="#006600">– Tomorrow's cases</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><strong><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></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></strong></font><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>Penalty was leviable even in a case where addition of concealed income reduces the returned loss. Law is well settled that the applicable provision would be the law as it existed on the date of the filing of the return. - Virtual Soft Systems over-ruled – Supreme Court </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Law is well settled that the applicable provision would be the law as it existed on the date of the filing of the return. It is of relevance to note that when any loss is returned in any return it need not necessarily be the loss of the concerned previous year. It may also include carried forward loss which is required to be set up against future income under Section 72 of the Act. Therefore, the applicable law on the date of filing of the return cannot be confined only to the losses of the previous accounting years. </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 color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>An appeal lies not against the finding but against the order - Issue of marketability can be taken in subsequent proceedings: Tribunal </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On going through the order-in-original, the Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority had taken a short cut approach while giving his findings and hence it could not be ascertained as to whether the evidences were produced before the adjudicating authority and that he had considered those evidences. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Customs </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Imported goods assessed to higher Duty only on account of omission by AO. If the importer is compelled to pay huge revenue, for fault of AO it would definitely amount to mis-carriage of justice: CESTAT </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong> appellant urged the Tribunal that it is the primary responsibility of the Assessing Officer to assess the imported goods and determine the appropriate duty leviable thereon. In the process, the Assessing Officer also has the primary responsibility to provide benefit of any exemption notifications applicable to such imports and thereafter compute the duty liability. Ignorance of the appellant in not claiming the benefit of an exemption notification at the time of import cannot be held against the importer and deny the refund claim filed after the appellant becomes aware of the eligibility to such benefits. </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 color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Terms 'Guaranteed Public Telephone' and 'Local Calls' are highly technical terms not decipherable by Revenue – DoT is appropriate authority to resolve conflict </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>SOMETIMES </strong> it defies logic as to why there is no co-ordination between various Government Departments. <strong>TIOL </strong>has been continuously stressing the need for a “<strong>setu</strong>” between the <strong>Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Finance</strong> so that the SEZ issue is sorted out. But then, litigation is what actually everyone, including Revenue craves for, for the reason that one wishes the <strong>Apex Court</strong> to have a final say in the matter and obviously if the final say is not to the Revenue's liking, then there is always the <strong>spectre </strong> of retrospective legislation. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, it was a pleasant surprise to find the Tribunal decide the present set of appeals filed by <strong>Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sangli</strong> in the most logical manner although<strong> it appeared midway that the matter may go the Revenue way</strong>. </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="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Tomorrow with more</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> <font color="#FF6633">DDT </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice Day. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font color="#FF6633">Mail your comments to</font> <a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </a></font></p>
</body>
</html>