TIOL-DDT 972 · 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 972</font><br>
16.10.2008<br>
Thursday</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Penalty under Section 11 AC – Revenue wins huge battle in Supreme Court</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is now finally decided – The Larger Bench of the Supreme Court has emphatically ruled that there is no discretion and penalty has to be equal to the duty. Ever since the scheme was introduced in 1996, the matter had been one of intense litigation with the Courts taking differing positions. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A little recap is absolutely necessary.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=6024" target="_blank">DDT 693 - 06.09.2007</a>, </strong>we reported to you,</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Mandatory penalty – Happy Board commends CESTAT LB decision to the field.</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">On 26th July 2007, we carried the landmark decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal holding that mandatory penalty is not the maximum penalty and if suppression, collusion etc, are proved, there is no option and penalty equal to the duty demanded has to be imposed.(<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=52&filename=legal/cestat/2007/2007-TIOL-1017-CESTAT-DEL-LB.htm"><font size="1">2007-TIOL-(1017-CESTAT-DELHI-LB</font></a>) .</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Obviously the Board is very happy and has communicated our citation to the field, with extracts from the Larger Bench decision. The Board letter says, </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The above cited Tribunal's decision is an important authority on the subject and has considered the legal provisions in a very comprehensive, holistic and detailed manner, setting to rest the controversies as created by a host of decisions on the subject matter creating all round confusion in the field. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board wants the field officers to keep in mind this decision, while deciding the question of imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act or Section 114A of the Customs Act as it lays to rest the disparity of practices in the field formations arising out of two diametrically opposite viewpoints as held by various judicial bodies and for the guidance and action of the field officers in similar circumstances. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board actually has no reason to worry as perhaps not a single officer in the country had imposed a penalty less than the amount of duty, under Section 11AC . </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Remember we had carried an article last week by Jai Kumar and Natarajan , where the authors felt that the Tribunals and courts can still impose lesser penalty. Maybe the issue is not finally settled and the issue can still be agitated in the Supreme Court. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>In his budget speech of 1996, the Finance Minister said, </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am proposing suitable changes in the Customs and Excise Acts to provide for mandatory penalty, together with interest, for evasion of duties on account of fraud, collusion, mis -statement or suppression of facts. Henceforth, the mandatory penalty for evasion of duty on these counts shall be equal to the amount of duty evaded. Tax evaders would also be required to pay interest starting from the first day of the succeeding month in which the duty evaded ought to have been paid and also face criminal prosecution. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>The Board letter explaining the Budget said,</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Finance Bill also contains a proposal regarding mandatory penalty in cases of non-levy, short levy or non-payment or short payment of duty or erroneous refund arising from fraud, collusion or any wilful statement or suppression of facts or contravention of provisions of Act or rules with intent to evade payment of duty. A new Section 11AB has been inserted in the Central Excises and Salt Act. It may be seen that in such cases the adjudicating officer shall have no discretion to determine the amount of penalty and the penalty shall be equal to the amount of duty or refund which is determined as payable under Section 11A (2).</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Any idea who the FM was? Our very own Chidambaram</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So the original idea appears to have been to impose a mandatory penalty equal to the duty demanded, but somewhere down the line with <em>Machino montell </em> and <em>RINL </em>, it somehow became the law that if duty is paid before issue of notice, there should be no mandatory penalty. This was too good to last, though a perfectly good logic. Even when the assessees came up voluntarily to pay any excise duty which escaped inadvertently, they were stuck with penalty and interest notices. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anyway it is celebrations time for Revenue and the Board has gladly circulated the case reported by us. Penalty or interest, revenue or assessee, it is good economics to log on to <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com">www.taxindiaonline.com </a> for the latest.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=1464" target="_blank">DDT 93 - 11 04 2005 </a>, </strong>we reported, </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399">Has the Tribunal any discretion to reduce the amount of penalty under Section 11 AC?</font><br>
</strong><br>
The Department's view is that the penalty equal to the duty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is mandatory and there is no discretion. Though it is nine years since the section came into force, strangely this question is not so far decided by the Supreme Court or any High Court. The famous Escorts JCB case - <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=52&filename=legal/cestat/2002/2002-TIOL-26-CESTAT-DEL.htm"><font size="1">2002-TIOL-26-CESTAT-DEL</font> </a> – was all about valuation, but there was a very interesting decision made by the Tribunal in that case. The Tribunal held that the penalty equal to duty is the maximum and not mandatory. <strong>It is not mandatory that in all cases such maximum should be imposed as penalty. </strong> Authority is having discretion to impose lesser penalty. And the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs 30 Lakhs to Rs 10 Lakhs . The party took the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court on the issue of demand and Revenue also took the matter to Supreme Court challenging the reduction in penalty. The Supreme Court allowed the party's appeal and so there was no demand and consequently no penalty – mandatory or otherwise. Therefore there was no decision on the Revenue appeal. Tribunal continued to hold that mandatory penalty was not all that mandatory. And Revenue is constantly aggrieved. A few reference applications are pending in various High Courts. On the 1st of April 2005, the Supreme Court had another occasion to decide this issue in <strong>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-I v M/s DABUR INDIA LIMITED. </strong> This was also a case where the Tribunal reduced the penalty. The Supreme Court did not find any reason to interfere with the Tribunal's order and dismissed the Revenue appeal with the remarks, <strong>We leave open the question whether the Tribunal has power to reduce penalty to be decided in an appropriate case. </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Till then Tribunal will give relief. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See full text of Judgement(<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=50&filename=legal/sc/2005/2005-TIOL-64-SC-CX-LB.htm"><font size="1"><strong>2005-TIOL-64-SC- CX -LB</strong></font></a>)</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=5815" target="_blank">DDT 664 - 25.07.2007</a>, </strong>we reported, </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Mandatory penalty under Sec 11A is not maximum - No discretion to reduce penalty : CESTAT Larger Bench</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Revenue has won a humungous victory. If penalty is imposable under Section 11AC , now nobody has discretion to reduce the penalty. The Larger Bench held that <strong>Once it is held that imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is warranted, the wordings of Section 11AC do not leave any option for imposing a reduced penalty.</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please also refer to our Guest article <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=5976" target="_blank">ERR (O) THO DARRO</a></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In <em>Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai and Anr . </em> (<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=50&filename=legal/sc/2007/2007-TIOL-96-SC-IT.htm"><font size="1"><strong>2007-TIOL-96-SC-IT</strong></font></a>), the Supreme Court had held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act is discretionary in nature. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In <em>Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund and Anr. (2006 (5) SCC 361) </em> = (<a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=50&filename=legal/sc/2006/2006-TIOL-72-SC-SEBI.htm"><font size="1"><strong>2006-TIOL-72-SC-SEBI</strong></font></a>), the Supreme Court held that, “penalty is imposable as soon as violation of the regulations established - statute does not entail establishment of <em>mens rea</em>”</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yet another bench of the Supreme Court in <em>UNION OF INDIA & ORS Vs M/s DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS & ORS - </em>(<strong><font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=50&filename=legal/sc/2007/2007-TIOL-159-SC-CX.htm" target="_blank">2007-TIOL-159-SC-CX</a></font></strong><font size="1"><font size="2">)</font></font>felt that the matter had to be decided by a Larger Bench.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And the Larger Bench has now decided the issue in favour of the Revenue.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Today we bring you the Supreme Court Judgement.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please see our <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=8015" target="_blank">Breaking News</a>.</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Money management – Sub Chid</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">RBI Governor Subba Rao and FM Chidambaram are taking all steps to coax that bear in the market to become a bull, but the bear seems to know that it is a lot of bull.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yesterday morning Chidambaram met the Prime Minister along with Subba Rao and later issued a press release to the effect that:-</font></p>
<ul>
<li><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">the banks were able to access only Rs.3,500 crore from the special window of Rs.20,000 crore opened by RBI for providing liquidity to mutual funds;</font></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">inter-bank lending still remains constrained and it is necessary to overcome these constraints;</font></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">it is important to ensure that credit flows to borrowers within the sanctioned limits of term loans and of working capital; and that it is also important to enhance the credit limits where borrowers require more credit;</font></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify"> Government and RBI are agreed on the measures that have to be taken immediately.</font></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" align="justify">Governor, RBI is on his way to Mumbai and will work out the details of the measures agreed upon. I expect to be able to make a statement later in the afternoon.</font></li>
</ul>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As promised he made another statement in the evening and announced that it is proposed to take the following additional measures:</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) Under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, Government had agreed to provide to the commercial banks, RRBs and cooperative credit institutions, a sum of Rs.25,000 crore as the first instalment. It is felt that this money should be provided immediately. Hence, at the request of Government, RBI has agreed to provide a sum of Rs.25 ,000 crore to the lending institutions immediately. The money will be made available to the commercial banks (Rs.7 ,500 crore) and to NABARD (Rs.17,500 crore). There will be no requirement of providing collateral.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) The limit of FII investment in corporate bonds will be raised from US$ 3 billion to US$ 6 billion.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iii) Our banks are well capitalised. Their CRRs are well above the Basel norm of 8 per cent and the RBI stipulated norm of 9 per cent. No bank has a capital adequacy of less than 10 per cent. Nevertheless, Government has decided to provide the banks access to finance in order to raise the CRAR of banks that are now between 10 to 12 per cent to reach the level of 12 per cent by a suitable date in the future. The details of the capitalisation scheme are being worked out.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iv) RBI has already issued an advisory to the banks to enable smooth flow of credit to borrowers of term loans as well as working capital. Government is also issuing an advisory to public sector banks impressing upon the banks the need to:</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. ensure easy drawdown against sanctioned limits; </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. appraise, promptly, requests for enhancement of credit limits; and</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. continue to participate actively in the inter-bank call money market.</font></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And the Reserve Bank Governor has reached Mumbai as correctly predicted by the Finance Minister and has issued guidelines to banks to use that 20,000 Crores, which says,</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“The Reserve Bank announced and conducted a special fixed rate term repo at 9 per cent per annum against eligible securities for a notified amount of Rs.20,000 crore on October 14, 2008, with a view to enabling banks to meet the liquidity requirements of mutual funds. Banks utilized Rs 3500 crore of this facility on October 14, 2008.</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. The special fixed rate term repo under liquidity adjustment facility will now be conducted every day until further notice up to a <strong>cumulative</strong> amount of Rs 20,000 crore for the same purpose. Accordingly, the <strong>residual</strong> amount will be notified every day till further notice.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. The eligible banks and PDs may submit their applications electronically through NDS between 2.30 PM to 3.15 PM. today. Allocations would normally be made on a <em>pro-rata </em>basis in case the tenders exceed the notified amount.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. The Reserve Bank will issue a press release each day mentioning the <strong>cumulative </strong>utilisation by banks and PDs under this facility, the notified amount and the tenor for the next day's auction.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. This repo will be in <strong>addition</strong> to the repo/reverse repo auctions conducted under Liquidity Adjustment Facility (LAF) and Second Liquidity Adjustment Facility (SLAF) which will be held as usual.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6. The settlement for the special repo would be conducted separately and on gross basis.</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>We can only generate good reports - CAG</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A conference of AGs is going on in New Delhi. The Conference was inaugurated by the President of India and was addressed by the Chief Justice of India.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In his address to the conference, the CAG remarked,</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“This department is conscious of the fact that while we can <strong>generate good Reports </strong>, it is basically for the administration to take appropriate measures to tone up the system and produce quality delivery channels. Hence we are making every effort to provide good synergy between audit and auditees . We are increasing interactions with the sole intention of maximizing the efficiency of public expenditure and improving Government's credibility. Today's Conference provides to the Accountants General an invaluable platform to reflect on various issues and a lot more. Our capital is human knowledge. <strong>We are a learning organization </strong> and hence knowledge driven. We have to respond to the changes around us. We have to respond to the expectations from us and maximize the value that audit provides. We are continuously engaged in upgrading, re-skilling and ensuring dynamism in our capability to be adequately equipped to the rapid changes around us.”</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sir, the fact is that you don't generate good reports – you submit to Parliament half baked half truths. In the name of paras and revenue involved, you raise strange objections which cause irreparable damage to the economy and sinful waste of time.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As for being a “learning organisation”, the ground reality is that at least as far as Customs and Excise is concerned there is hardly any learning in your organisation and you only generate litigation.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you can simply spend a couple of hours with the Chairmen of the Boards and if your AGs can spend similar hours with the Chief Commissioners, you can save a lot of paper and avoid all those silly objections.</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>Sales Tax </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Sales tax on food and drinks supplied by a club to its members</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Matter remanded to Tribunal to decide the exact relationship between the parties. Will it have any Service Tax implications? </strong>In this case there was no determination by the fact finding authorities regarding the relationship between the Club and its members in the matter of supply of food and drinks; that is to say, was the Club acting as an agent of the members or did the property in food and drinks pass from the Club to the members? </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>Exports by 100% EoUs - wordings used in Sec 10B are similar to those in Sec 80I - exports incentives and interest earned on deposits made for power and water connections not eligible for Sec 10B benefits</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Income Tax Act allows deduction for exports benefits and profits from exports under various sections. EoUs are eligible for similar benefits u/s 10B . But, is it a blanket benefit which can be reaped by EoUs on all sorts of income? The latest decision of the Tribunal explicitly says no. Assessees cannot avail the fruits of Sec 10B on exports incentive and exports quota benefits earned by an EoU . Similarly, it can have the cake of earning interest income from deposits made for electricity and water connections but cannot eat the cake u/s 10B which has the wordings similar to Sec 80I - "any profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking".</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>Duty paid 'Coconut Punch Chocolates' bought in bulk and repacked with manufactured 'Coffee Bite chocolates' and cleared on payment of duty under s.4A is entitled for CENVAT Credit: Tribunal</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Bench noted that provisions of Section 2(f)( iii) were specifically introduced from 1.3.2003 and it included packing or repacking of the goods as manufacture. As such, <strong>the activity of packing of “Coconut Punch chocolate” along with “Coffee bite” is an activity amounting to manufacture </strong>, the Bench added and further observed that as there is an activity of manufacturing, the duty paid Coconut Punch chocolate produced by respondents has to be considered as an input for manufacturing final products ‘Coffee bite'.</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 <strong>DDT</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 color="#FF6633" 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>