TIOL-DDT 998 · 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 998</font><br>
25.11.2008<br>
Tuesday</strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Duty Drawback on Steel is back</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">By Notification No. 64/2008- Cus.,(N.T), Dated: May 29, 2008, The Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 have been amended to stipulate that no amount or rate of drawback shall be determined in respect of any of the goods falling within Chapter 72 (Iron & Steel) or heading 1006 (Rice) or 2523 (cement) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now steel – rather the whole of Chapter 72 is out of the excluded list – that means you can claim drawback on export of steel.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2008/cnt08_129.htm" target="_blank">Notification NO. 129/2008- Cus., (N.T.), Dated: November 21, 2008</a></strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Export Promotion Schemes – Specified ports – Haldia and Dabolim added – Double Amendments?</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haldia (Halida Dock Complex of Kolkata Port) and Dabolim (Goa) are to be added to the list of ports specified under certain Customs Exemption Notifications. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is the amendment made in 7 Notifications:-</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>(a) for the words “and Vadimar”, the words and brackets “Vadimar and Haldia ( Halida Dock Complex of Kolkata Port)”, shall be substituted;</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>(b) for the words “and Indore”, the words and brackets “Indore and Dabolim (Goa)”, shall be substituted.</em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The following notifications are amended</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. 55/2003-Customs, dated the 1st April, 2003</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. 92/2004-Customs, dated the 10th September, 2004</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. 97/2004-Customs, dated the 17th September, 2004</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. 41/2005-Customs, dated the 9th May, 2005</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. 89/2005-Customs, dated the 4th October, 2005</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6. 40/2006-Customs, dated the 1st May 2006</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">7. 90/2006-Customs, dated the 1st September, 2006</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">8. 91/2006-Customs, dated the 1st September, 2006</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">These amendments were already carried out in Notifications 55/2003 and 97/2004 (Sl. No. 1 and 3 above), by Notification No. 65/2008- Cus., Dated: May 9, 2008. These are again added now. Apparently, the Board does not have an updated copy of these notifications. Really difficult to keep track of so manynotifications, but the Board cannot afford to be casual in Law making.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2008/ctariff08_125.htm" target="_blank">Notification NO. 125/2008- Cus ., Dated: November 21, 2008</a></strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) – Anti Dumping Duty imposed</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Government has imposed Anti dumping Duty on Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) with or without ballast or control gear or choke, whether or not assembled, either in completely knocked down or semi knocked down condition originating in, or exported from China PR, Sri Lanka and Vietnam.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2008/ctariff08_126.htm" target="_blank">Notification NO. 126/2008- Cus ., Dated: November 21, 2008</a></strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT brings in more items under Restricted Category</strong></font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Seamless Tubes/Pipes under 4 digit Exim Code 7304</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. Carbon black – 2803 00 10</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. New pneumatic tyres, of rubber – Radials - 4011 20 10</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. Medium density fibre board (MDF) – 4411</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. Synthetic filament yarn - Elastomeric - 5402</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">will all be under the ‘restricted category of imports now.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per Para 2.7 of the Foreign Trade Policy, Any goods, export or import of which is <strong><font color="#FF6633">restricted</font> </strong> under ITC(HS) may be exported or imported only in accordance with an Authorisation or in terms of a public notice issued in this regard.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2008/dgft08not064.htm" target="_blank"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>DGFT Notification NO. 64/(RE-2008)/2004-2009 Dated: November 24, 2008</strong></font></a></p>
<p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Promotion
to post of Commissioner of Customs and Excise – Good
News for both Appraiser Promotees and Direct Recruits</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">An Additional Commissioner told us recently that his batch mates are already Commissioners for the last four years and he is still languishing as an Additional Commissioner. The promotions have been embroiled in litigation between promotees and Direct Recruits. The issue is so overcharged that last time we reported about the loss of the file pertaining to promotion, we received quite a few mails and calls and each side accused us of supporting the other side. One of our editorial colleagues told an agitated caller, “we are not going to get the promotion; you are.”</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In June 2008, the DPC had recommended promotion of 36 Additional Commissioners who were direct Recruit Assistant Commissioners. 12 vacancies pertaining to Appraiser Promotees were kept in abeyance. The promotee Assistant Commissioners who are now Additional Commissioners challenged this and got a stay.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">To cut a long story short, the Delhi High Court has directed the Government to go ahead and promote those already recommended for promotion to the grade of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise by the DPC held on 23rd June, 2008. <strong>Good News </strong> for Direct Recruits – 36 Additional Commissioners will become Commissioners.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court has also directed the Government to hold the DPC to consider the promotee Appraisers and Superintendents (who are now Additional Commissioners) for promotion to the grade of Commissioner. This is to be held latest by 31st December, 2008. <strong>Good News </strong> for promotes too. By beginning of next year, they too will get promotion.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Let them all live happily ever after.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We bring you this important High Court order today. See <strong>Breaking News</strong>.</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"><strong><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">Customs</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">Detention under COFEPOSA - The Court has a duty to see whether the non supply of any document is in any way prejudicial to the case of the detenu – High Court order quashing detention set aside – Whether detenu is to be picked up for preventive detention after a decade to be decided by State – Supreme Court</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>A</strong> person is detained under COFEPOSA; his detention is quashed by High Court; State is in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sets aside the High Court order. More than 9 years have elapsed. Should the detenu be picked up now?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399">Service Tax</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">Distribution of CENVAT Credit of Input Services by Input Service Distributor (Head Office) to unit engaged in the manufacture of goods which are captively consumed by other establishments – Tribunal grants waiver of pre-deposit and remands matter</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><strong>DISTRIBUTING LITIGATION</strong>: </strong>Admittedly, when the fact remains that Revenue does not find any fault with the CENVAT Credit per se as availed by the Head Office [Input Service Distributor] inasmuch as it does not allege contravention of the provisions of rule 9 of the CCR, 2004 or for that matter any contravention of rule 7 of the CCR, 2004, aren't such objections avoidable?</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 size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">There is no requirement of profits being generated out of actual business of shipping operations. Had it been the case there was no need to amend the Section vide Finance Act, 1995 and restrict the benefits to 50% of profits arising from only shipping business.</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THERE</strong> is no such requirement that the assessee in order to be eligible for deduction has to actually operate ships or that the amount in respect of which deduction is to be allowed and credited to the reserved account, had to be the income earned from shipping business. In the instant case, the assessee was a company formed and registered in India and one of its main objects was to carry on the business of operations of ships. The company had entered into agreement for purchase of ships in the relevant assessment year i.e.1994-95 and actually operated them in the assessment year 1995-96.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399">Central Excise</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">When Show Cause notice alleging suppression of facts was issued in year 2000 there was no way that a certificate under rule 57E could be denied in year 1998 - Tribunal rejects Revenue appeal</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IT</strong> is not understandable as to how a certificate under Rule 57E can be denied in 1998, when <em>the show cause notice against which duty payment was made never alleged suppression of facts and such allegations have been made for the first time in the show cause notice issued in the year 2000. </em> Clearly, such order is not maintainable.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399">See our columns tomorrow for the judgements</font></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>