15.05.2014
Thursday
 DR. Ravindra Babu was till recently the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise at Visakhapatnam.
This Medical Doctor IRS officer of the 1991 batch quit the IRS to take the plunge into politics.
He joined Chandra Babu Naidu's Telugu Desam Party and is the party's official candidate for the Lok Sabha elections from Amalapuram constituency in Andhra Pradesh. This novice to politics is almost sure to win his maiden attempt to enter Parliament, with the TDP-BJP alliance said to be sweeping Andhra Pradesh.
In between his innumerable meetings and long drives across his vast constituency, DDT could get a few minutes to talk to him.
When I asked him if I can congratulate him in advance, a confident Dr.Babu said, "go ahead; I am winning!" Then I told him that he has good chances of becoming the Minister of State for Revenue/Finance; he said that is too farfetched. Any way this Doctor turned tax administrator turned politician would be an ideal choice.
Dr Babu had varied experience in the Department in Mumbai Customs, NACEN and as a Departmental Representative in CESTAT. He quit the Revenue service to serve the people better and to develop the State - Good Luck Dr. Babu.
Anti-dumping duty extended on Cold Rolled Flat products of Stainless steel
VIDE notification No. 38/2009-Customs, dated the 22nd April, 2009, the Central Government had imposed provisional anti-dumping duty in the matter of import of Cold Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel (heading 7219) originating in, or exported from the People's Republic of China (China PR), Korea, European Union, South Africa, Taiwan (Chinese Taipei), Japan, Thailand and United States of America (USA).
It was also mentioned in the notification that the anti-dumping imposed shall be effective upto and inclusive of the 21st day of October, 2009.
Consequent upon the final findings of the designated authority, definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed on the impugned goods vide notification 14/2010-Cus dated 20th February, 2010.
Paragraph 2 of the notification made it amply clear that the anti-dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be levied with effect from the date of imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty.
This was actually to resurrect the earlier notification which died four months ago. See DDT 1305 dated 23.02.2010.
This notification 14/2010-Cus also underwent minor amendment by notification 86/2011-Cus dated 6/09/2011 and a correction by corrigendum F.No.354/87/2009-TRU (Pt. 1) dated 7th February, 2012.
And this ADD notification 14/2010-Cus has been in the midst of some chaos because of the amending notification 86/2011-Cus. For more on that see 2013-TIOL-1426-CESTAT-MUM & 2013-TIOL-1628-CESTAT-MUM.
Now, in the said notification, after Paragraph 2, the following is inserted:-
"3. Notwithstanding anything contained in Paragraph 2 above, this notification shall remain in force up to and inclusive of 21st April, 2015 unless revoked earlier."
Admittedly, this is a unique way to infuse life in a notification whose soul, otherwise, had left on 22nd April, 2014.
Notification 20/2014-Cus (ADD) Dated: May 12, 2014
Judgement pronounced and dictated in open court can be recalled
YESTERDAY, we reported an important Larger Bench Supreme Court decision where it was held as above. The rider is that the order should not have been signed.
Long ago, in Sangam Lal v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad & Ors., AIR 1966 All. 221, the Court held that until a judgment is signed and sealed after delivering in court, it is not a judgment and it can be changed or altered at any time before it is signed and sealed.
See 2014-TIOL-59-SC-NDPS-LB
ROM application filed by Revenue for getting case law citation corrected
THE caption may surprise you but surprised we were too when we came across this recent decision of the Tribunal.
The Larger Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Vandana Global & Ors (2010-TIOL-624-CESTAT-DEL-LB) has held that Explanation 2 to Rule 2(l) of CCRs, 2004 is clarificatory in nature and hence applicable retrospectively and, therefore, CENVAT Credit not eligible on cement, angles, channels and CTD or TMT used for construction of factory shed, laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods.
The Revenue representative cited this decision in the proceedings before the CESTAT and was successful in getting an order in its favour. Unfortunately and perhaps inadvertently in the order passed by the Tribunal, the "citation" given to the case law referred of Vandana Global was a tad incorrect.
And the Revenue must have got the jitters for that citation belonged to some other case. By the way, in the incorrectly cited case, the Allahabad High Court had also denied the credit!
So, the CCE, Aurangabad filed a ROM application to get the citation corrected. Not surprising if you read 2010-TIOL-149-CESTAT-MUM.
And the Member (Judicial) held -
"3. I find that the citation has been mentioned in the case of Global Vandana 2013(293)ELT186 instead of 2010(253)ELT 440 (LB). Therefore, in paragraph 4 of the order referred therein may be read as Vandana 2010(253)ELT440(LB). With this term, the application for Rectification of Mistake is disposed of."
Hopefully, the Revenue should not mind Vandana Global being mentioned as Global Vandana or simply Vandana!
See 2014-TIOL-773-CESTAT-MUM
Jurisprudentiol - Friday's cases
 Central Excise
Invoices issued, but goods not cleared - Tribunal stays penalty of Rs 18 crores imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002
THE appellant submitted that they had manufactured goods valued at Rs.1,83,37,32,793/- during the period January to March, 2010, but due to cancellation of orders by the customers, could not clear the goods from the factory, even though around 559 excise invoices had been prepared showing payment of duty.
Income Tax
Whether interest on account of default in making tax payment is to be calculated with reference to date of first assessment order and not with date of order passed in remand - YES: ITAT
THE issue before the Bench is - Whether interest on account of default in making payment of Income Tax would have to be calculated with reference to the date of first assessment order and not with the date of an order passed in remand proceedings. And the verdict goes against the assessee.
Customs
Cus -As no Bill of Entry was filed appellants cannot be held to be importers of impugned goods - so also, to finance importer does not make appellants importer of goods - Penalty not imposable u/s 112(i) of CA, 1962 - Appeals allowed: CESTAT
ON a specific intelligence that a large quantity of 'cloves' by mis-declaring as 'chicpeas' were being smuggled into India, a container was intercepted. On examination of the goods, it was found that the cloves were also being smuggled along with the chicpeas and as per the IGM the importer is M/s Dhanlaxmi Enterprises (I) who declared the goods as 'Chicpeas'.
See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com |
Download PDF
