TIOL-DDT 999 · 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 999</font><br> 26.11.2008<br> Wednesday</strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Goods Imported for use of SPG - Exemption</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Goods imported by the Special Protection Group for operational purposes are exempted from Customs Duty if the <strong>importer </strong> produces a certificate from an officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs not below the rank of an Under Secretary to the Government of India to the effect that the said goods are intended for the aforesaid purposes, as per Notification No. No. 39/96-Customs, dated 23rd July 1996.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This obviously appears self contradictory – goods imported <strong>by SPG </strong> are exempted if the <strong>importer </strong> produces a certificate from the Under Secretary in the Home Ministry. Apparently this would mean that the SPG is not the importer and if SPG is not the importer, there is no exemption.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now how will the Under Secretary in the Home Ministry give a certificate when the SPG works under the Cabinet Secretariat?</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">These defects have now been rectified.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now the exemption is for goods imported <strong>for the use of </strong> Special Protection Group for operational purpose. It is not for the goods imported <strong>by </strong>SPG, but for the goods imported <strong>for </strong> use of SPG.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And the certificate is now to be given by the Under Secretary in the Cabinet Secretariat and not the Home Ministry.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The SPG is a Super Special Security Agency to protect the Prime Minister, his immediate family and some other VVIPs. The entire Budget for the Council of Ministers last year was 135 Crores while the Budget for SPG was 154 Crores.</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_124.htm" target="_blank">Notification NO. 124/2008-Customs Dated: 21st November, 2008</a></strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>LTUs to pay Excise Duty and Service Tax only electronically</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In No. 834/11/2006- CX dated 05.10.2006, the CBEC pleaded in para VI,</font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As the e-payment facility has been provided for payment of central excise duty and service tax, large taxpayer may be requested to opt for e-payment as far as possible as it will reduce the compliance cost, and it will be beneficial for the department also for revenue reconciliation.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Board now notes that most of the large taxpayers are already covered under the mandatory e-payment clause. So to ensure proper accounting of the departmental revenues, this para of the circular is amended as:</font></p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">“<strong>VI. Duty Payment:</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As e-payment facility has been provided for payment of central excise duty and service tax, large taxpayers shall pay the central excise and service tax dues electronically only, through internet banking. However, in case of difficulties in e-payment, a large taxpayer is permitted to pay the duty through banks (except in such cases where e-payment is mandatory) in the jurisdiction of the LTU Commissionerate only.”</font></p> </blockquote> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2008/excircular878.htm" target="_blank">CBEC Circular NO. 878/16/2008- CX Dated: 21st November , 2008</a></strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Review of Advance Authorization cases - Fulfilment of Export Obligation</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per Policy Circular No.9 dated 30.6.2003, import of approved and unapproved drugs under the Advance Licensing Scheme (now renamed Advance Authorization Scheme) has been allowed without Registration procedure, subject to pre-import condition and fulfilment of Export Obligation within a period of six months from the date of import of first consignment.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The validity of Advance Authorization is 24 months, which can be further revalidated for six months from the date of expiry. The maximum period for fulfilling EO in Advance Authorization issued under Policy Circular No.9 dated 30.6.2003, will be 6 months from the dated of 1st import.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">With a view to strictly monitor export obligation in all such cases in time, DGFT directs that RAs must ensure that appropriate action is initiated immediately after completion of the maximum allowable time period of 36 months from the date of issue of Advance Authorization under Policy Circular No.9 dated 30.6.2003.</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=46&filename=notification/dgft/2008/dgft08cir042.htm" target="_blank">DGFT Policy Circular NO. 42 (RE- 08) 2004-09 Dated: November 24, 2008</a></strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>High Court unhappy with sad state of affairs in ITAT</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We often find that the HONOURABLE Judges – quasi or full, often hear the parties and then reserve the orders. These orders are delivered after a couple of months or years as per their convenience.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">When the order is delivered after a few months after hearing, obviously, they can't recollect the arguments – and the hearing becomes a farce. Sometimes, we find that such orders are totally different from what they suggested in the open courts.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Departmental Adjudication is worse.– They never pass an order immediately after the personal hearing, because most of the orders are written by subordinate officers! The least that these officers can do is to pronounce their verdict and record it in the file immediately after hearing.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Recently the Bombay High Court was aghast at the ITAT delivering a judgement four months after the date of hearing.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The High Court directed the President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down guidelines on similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of <em>Anil Rai v. State of Bihar </em> and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Meanwhile, all the revisional and appellate authorities under the Income Tax Act are directed to decide matters heard by them within a period of three months from the date a case is closed for judgement.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Should this also not apply to CESTAT and all Adjudication and Appellate Authorities under CBEC?</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We bring you this interesting order today – Please see <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=8203" target="_blank">Breaking News</a></strong>.</font></p> <p align="center"><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>High Court Summons Governor – No Deviation for Tiwari</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ND (No Deviation) Tiwari, the only person who had been Chief Minister of two States, had been a CM five times, had been a Union Finance Minister and is at present Governor of Andhra Pradesh – is now summoned by a judge of Delhi High Court to appear before her on December 16, in a paternity case. He was refused exemption from personal appearance. He is 85 years old. Hardly the time in life to get a son.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Governor swears in the Chief Justice of the State and vice-versa, but apparently, he (Governor, not CJ) is not exempted from appearing before a judge.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Summoning high Dignitaries does not serve any purpose – most probably they will not attend and even if they do, they get all the publicity. President VV Giri had appeared before the Supreme Court, even though he could have asked for an exemption.</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></strong></font><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>Valuation – import of ship – addendum to MOA not accepted: Supreme Court</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>date on which the said addendum stood executed is not given. Further, when did the addendum stand incorporated in the MoA . We do not find the date on which the clause stood inserted in the MoA. Further, the said addendum does not give any reason for reduction in the price from US$ 9,70,960.23 to US$ 8,70,960.23. Further, the most clinching factor to be seen is that the said addendum appears to have been executed at the request of the buyer. In our view, this is a self-serving document.</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>Exclusion under Section 67A is for 'association of persons or body of individuals' and not member of such AOP or BOI – Anything can be excluded from an item only when it is included in that item: ITAT by majority</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THERE </strong>was a Government advertisement – <font color="#663399">“<strong>the Nation is fighting corruption – support it</strong>”</font>. What does this mean? Are we supposed to support corruption or the Nation?</font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>In computing the total income of </em><font color="#FF6633">an assessee who is a member of an association of persons or a body of individuals</font> <em> wherein the shares of the <strong><font color="#663399">members</font></strong> are determinate and known [<font color="#663399">other than a company or a cooperative society or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act</font>]</em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now does the exclusion –<font color="#FF6633"> other than a company</font> refer to <font color="#FF6633">association of persons or a body of individuals or the member of an AOP or BOI</font>?</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>Commissioner directing DC to file an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) against an order passed by Addl Commissioner – He couldn't have done so at material time – Tribunal dismisses Revenue appeal.</strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Commissioner (Appeals), however, did not think this as appropriate. He dismissed the appeal of the revenue on the ground that whereas the order-in-original was passed by the Additional Commissioner, an appeal has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner, who is not of the same level as Additional Commissioner and, therefore, such authorization under Sec.35E (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is improper as under this section only an adjudicating authority can be authorized to file an appeal.</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 the <font color="#663399" size="7">1000th</font> edition of <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>