TIOL-DDT 937 · 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="justify"><font size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663366">TIOL-DDT 937 </font></strong><font color="#663366"><strong></strong></font></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><br>
26.08.2008 <br>
Tuesday </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Service tax on GTA – Ghost of abatement availability rears its head again only to be exorcised by the Board </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We are reminded of a small anecdote. A pensioner goes to the Bank to draw pension for March 2008 and April 2008. He could produce a certificate that he was alive only for April 2008. Bank denies him pension for the Month of March 2008 as he failed to prove that he was alive during March 2008. Sounds ridiculous? Please read on… </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The tryst with Service tax on GTA is seemingly endless. In <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=5158" target="_blank">DDT 571</a> </strong> we reported that the Board has finally set to rest the confusion on the availability of abatement of 25% under Notification No. 32/2004-ST and 1/2006-ST by issuing a Section 37B Order. Inspite of a Section 37B Order from the CBEC, the field formations have one reason or the other to protract the litigations on this jinxed issue. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In Circular No. 5/1/2007-ST dated 12.03.2007 it was clarified that any person who is made liable to pay service tax, while discharging service tax liability on such service, is entitled to avail of the benefit of exemption in terms of notifications No 32/2004-ST, and No. 1/2006-ST, subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed therein by adopting the procedure prescribed vide para-31 of circular No.B1/6/2005-TRU, dated 27.7.2005. The field formations were directed to resolve the pending cases accordingly. We all hoped that the matter was finally given a decent burial and rejoiced. But it was not the case as expected. The persistent field formations had other ideas. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It may be recalled that in terms of Notification Nos. 32/2004-ST, there are two conditions prescribed for availing the said abatement. One is non-availment of CENVAT credit and second is the non-availment of benefit of notification no. 12/2003-ST. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In Para 31 of circular No. B1/6/2005-TRU dated 27.07.2005, it was clarified by the Board that if the service recipient obtains a declaration from the GTA who issued the consignment note, that neither credit on input or capital goods used for the provision of service has been taken nor the benefit of notification No. 12/2003-ST has been availed by them would suffice for the purpose of availment of abatement by such service recipient i.e. the person liable to pay service tax. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">However, the Notification No. 32/2004-ST is effective from January 1, 2005 and the TRU Circular is dated 27.07.2005. Obviously, in the intervening period, there is a gap of seven months and in the absence of a clear cut clarification, the show cause notices issued to cover this period were hanging fire in the field formations. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">To clear the air on this aspect, the Board had to intervene once again to clarify that the benefit of availment of abatement may also be extended to past cases i.e. for the period between January 2005 and July 2005, if the taxpayers produce a general declaration from the GTA to the effect that neither credit on input or capital goods used for the provision of service has been taken nor the benefit of notification No. 12/2003-ST has been availed by them. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let us all hope that this ghost of GTA abatement is exorcised forever as Board has now clarified that if a pensioner was alive during April 2008, it means he was also alive during March 2008. </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=41&filename=notification/servicetax/2008/service_tax_gta.htm" target="_blank">CBEC Letter No .F.NO.137/154/2008-CX.4 Dated: August 21, 2008</a></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Fate of Adjudication Orders in favour of revenue but apparently not legal and proper </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the recent Conference of Chief Commissioners and Director Generals held on May 29-30, 2008 with great pomp and ceremony and addressed by the Finance Minister [Refer<strong> <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=7369" target="_blank">DDT 876</a></strong> and <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=7384" target="_blank"><strong>877</strong></a>] , one of the decisions taken was that Adjudication Orders passed by the adjudicating authorities in favour of Revenue but which are apparently not proper and legal can also be taken up for review by the Chief Commissioners/Commissioners. Now after a lapse of two months, CBEC has addressed to the Chief Commissioners of Customs and Central Excise formations to solicit their views on the matter. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the intervening period, Mumbai Tribunal also had an occasion to deliberate on a very similar issue in Associated Film Industries Pvt Ltd & Others Vs. CCE, Mumbai –V [<font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=52&filename=legal/cestat/2008/2008-TIOL-1344-CESTAT-MUM.htm" target="_blank"><strong>2008-TIOL-1344-CESTAT-MUM</strong></a></font>] wherein the Tribunal held that when the Commissioner drops proceedings in a show cause notice, the findings arrived at on the issues agitated in that notice will get buried with the dropped proceedings irrespective of the fact that the findings are in favour of revenue and the proceedings in the show cause notice were dropped on the ground of limitation. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The essence of this judgment is that adjudicating authorities cannot base their decisions on the previous orders on similar/identical matter on the assumption that this was already in their favour by virtue of some finding in an order when the entire SCN gets washed away by dropping the proceedings. Unless the issue is further agitated by either of the parties at the appellate level and legality of the issue is decided one way or the other, mere findings in an order dropping the proceedings in a show cause notice cannot become a binding precedent for the subsequent litigations. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If the orders are in favour of the revenue, but not legal and proper, obviously the assesses will take up the issue in appeal. Will the Revenue also help the appellant to win his case? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now with the CBEC calling for comments on this issue once again, it is a foregone conclusion that the field formations will agitate the issues further and Tribunals will be saddled with even cases where proceedings are dropped at the lower levels. </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=31&filename=notification/excise/2008/letter_275.htm" target="_blank">CBEC Letter F.No. 275/55/2008-CX.8A Dated: July 28, 2008 </a></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>More relaxations from DGFT on export of edible oils </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">When the whole country was raging with inflation touching double digits the Government came out with knee jerk reactions by banning export of edible oils, enhancement of export duties on Iron ores etc., and now realising that the problem lies elsewhere and a blanket ban would only result in hardship to certain sectors, relaxations are put in place. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It may be noted that from the inception of a blanket ban on export of edible oils in March 2008 vide Notification No.85 (RE-2007)/2004-2009 dated 17.3.2008, the DGFT made course corrections thrice in a span of four months by relaxing the restrictions on certain edible oil products. In the latest notification, DGFT has relaxed the restrictions on the following exports </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) Export of Castor Oil, </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) Export of Coconut Oil through Kochi Port , </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iii) ‘Deemed export' of edible oils to 100% export oriented units with the condition that the final product be non-edible, </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iv) Export of Oils produced out of minor forest produce, as per table given below, even if edible: </font></p>
</blockquote>
<div align="justify">
<table width="450" border="1" align="center" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="180"><p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ITC (HS) Code </font></strong></p></td>
<td valign="top" width="468"><p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Item Description </font></strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="180"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">15159010 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top" width="468"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fixed Vegetable oils viz. Neutralised and Bleached Morwah Oil/fat, Neutralised and Bleached Kokum oil/fat, Neutralised and Bleached Sal oil/ sal fat / Stearine. </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="180"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">15159020 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top" width="468"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fixed vegetable oils viz. Dhup oil, Neemseed oil </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="180"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">15159030 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top" width="468"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fixed vegetable oils viz. Nigerseed oil. </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="180"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">15159040 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top" width="468"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Fixed vegetable oils viz. Neutralised and Bleached Mango kernel fat/oil/ stearine/olein. </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="180"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">15179010 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top" width="468"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sal Fat (Processed or Refined). </font></p></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="180"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">15219020 </font></p></td>
<td valign="top" width="468"><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shellac wax, whether or not coloured. </font></p></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(v) Export of edible oil from Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) to be consumed by the SEZ units for manufacture of processed food products. </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/dgft08not033.htm" target="_blank">DGFT NOT. NO. 33 (RE-2008)/2004-2009, Dated: August 19, 2008 </a></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Muli Bamboo freely exportable till March 31, 2010 </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT has amended the Chapter 14 of the Schedule 2 of the ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items, 2004-2009, was amended to specify that Muli Bamboo (Melocanna baccifera) is freely exportable till March 31, 2010. </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/dgft08not034.htm" target="_blank">DGFT NOT. NO. 34 (RE-2008)/2004-2009, Dated: August 19, 2008 </a></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Amendment to Import licensing note for import of marbles </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In terms of NOTIFICATION No. 17 (RE-2007)/2004-09 Dated: July 26, 2007, the import licensing note 2 for Chapter 25 in ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items, 2004-09 w as amended to read as under: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“Import of marble will be subject to the conditions laid down in Policy Circular No. 01 (RE-07)/2004-2009 dated 26.07. 2007.” </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now by virtue of an amendment, this licensing condition is further amended to read as follows: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“Import of marble will be subject to the conditions laid down in Policy Circular No.12 (RE-08)/2004-2009 date 27.06.2008, Policy Circular No.13 (RE-2008)/2004-09 dated 30.6.2008, Policy Circular No.20(RE-2008)/2004-09 dated 16.07.2008, Policy Circular No.25 (RE-2008)/2004-09 dated 08.08.2008 and Policy Circular No. 28 (RE-2008)/2004-09 dated 20.08.2008”. </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/dgft08not035.htm" target="_blank">DGFT NOT. NO. 35 (RE-2008)/2004-2009, Dated: August 20, 2008 </a></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Extension of export benefits to Handmade Carpets under VKGUY Scheme </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT has extended the export benefits to all Handmade Carpets of Jute, Coir and Cotton and other textile floor coverings of Jute, Coir and Cotton that are covered under Chapter 57, including synthetic Handmade Carpets, whether or not made up under the VKGUY scheme with effect from April 1, 2008. </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/2008/dgft08pn065.htm" target="_blank">PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 65 ( RE-2008)/ 2004-2009, Dated: August 19, 2008 </a></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT amends the list of authorities and their jurisdiction over SEZs </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Appendix I to the Handbook of Procedures Vol I which contains the list of authorities and their jurisdiction is amended by the DGFT. Accordingly, units situated in multi product Special Economic Zones other than those mentioned at Sl.No.34-41 (the eight SEZs that existed prior to the current SEZ policy framework) of the Appendix, shall come within the jurisdiction of respective Development Commissioners of the SEZs. In case of units in single product SEZs including IT/ITES SEZ, the work relating to issuance of IEC shall come under the jurisdiction of respective Regional Authorities of DGFT. </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/2008/dgft08pn066.htm" target="_blank">PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 66 ( RE-2008)/ 2004-2009, Dated: August 19, 2008 </a></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>RBI enhances the cap for advance remittances in certain cases</strong> </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In cases where the importer (other than a Public Sector Company or a Department/Undertaking of the Government of India/State Government) is unable to obtain bank guarantee from overseas suppliers and the AD Category – I bank is satisfied about the track record and bonafides of the importer, the requirement of the bank guarantee / standby letter of credit may not be insisted upon for advance remittance up to USD 1,000,000 or its equivalent. AD Category – I banks may frame their own internal guidelines to deal with such cases as per a suitable policy framed by the bank's Board of Directors. Now this cap is enhanced to USD 5,000,000 subject to the conditions prescribed therein. </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=280&filename=notification/rbi/2008/rbi08cir009.htm" target="_blank">A. P. (DIR Series) CIRCULAR NO. 9/RBI., Dated: August 21, 2008 </a></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>RBI lowers Rupee Value of Special Currency Basket </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In terms of the Deferred Payment Protocols dated April 30, 1981 and December 23, 1985 between Government of India and erstwhile USSR , RBI has lowered the Rupee value of the special currency basket from Rs. 62.5198 to Rs. 60.4392. </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=280&filename=notification/rbi/2008/rbi08cir010.htm" target="_blank">A. P. (DIR Series) CIRCULAR NO. 10/RBI., Dated: August 21, 2008</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 size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img width=100 height=84
src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/ddt_hammer.jpg"
align=left hspace=5 alt="Legal Corner Icon" border=0 v:shapes="_x0000_s1026"></font><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">Lease of table space to financial institutions and receiving remuneration for the same cannot be categorized as Business Auxiliary service - Not liable to service tax: Tribunal </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">APPELLANTS</font></strong> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">are engaged in sales and services of two wheelers. They also arrange loan from various financial institutions/banks for Hire Purchase and are therefore promotion/marketing of the products/services of the financial institutions/banks for which they are getting a consideration called pay-out/incentive/commission from the financial institution/banks. Service tax authorities tried to fasten service tax liability on the appellant for the consideration received in this regard by categorizing the activity under ‘Business Auxiliary service'. The revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which went in favour of the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Central Excise </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Attachment of property - whether in name of company or Director – Remand proceedings - Reliance on findings of an earlier order which was itself remanded by Tribunal is an incorrect proposition in law – Matter once again remanded by Tribunal </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">THE</font> </strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">present case when the applicants had filed an application for stay was reported by us [<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=52&filename=legal/cestat/2008/2008-TIOL-597-CESTAT-MUM.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1"><strong>2008-TIOL-597-CESTAT-Mum</strong></font></a>] with the caption – Attachment of property – legal heir of the deceased Director claims that property is in name of late Director and not company and hence cannot be attached – Tribunal restrains Revenue from taking further action. We had then parted the story thus – Another piece of statistics. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The matter had come up for final hearing recently and was remanded again with the finding that the adjudicating authority ought to have considered the entire evidences on record. </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"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A person may conduct his business by way of any constitution that he desires, be it as individual, as a proprietor of a proprietary concern or as a director of a company - So long as he renders services specified under the provisions, deduction cannot be denied – Services rendered by the assessee covered under call centre services, data processing services and insurance claim processing as notified by the Board - Activities are certified by STPI as consultancy services in relation to software development on site abroad – Deduction under Sec. 10A allowed – ITAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">THE</font></strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> assessee is engaged in providing services for development of computer software and claimed deductions under Sec.10A of the IT Act for the assessment years 2000-01 to 2003-04. The assessee filed revised returns declaring higher income and shifting the deduction claim from under Sec.10B to Sec.10A. The assessing officer rejected the claims of the assessee on the premise that the company is not engaged in software development, one of the two directors of the company is not adequately literate, the company is run solely by a director and that the company does not have any facility including internet connection to run its operations. After perusing the agreements entered by the company with its ‘clients', the assessing officer held that the director in fact worked as a consultant, there is no software development activity and that he worked under the supervision of the ‘clients' which rendered his claims infructous. The assessee took his grievance to the CIT (Appeals) but did not get any redressal. Finally he is before the Tribunal. </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 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>