TIOL-DDT 1684
02.09.2011
Friday
GOVERNMENT has imposed safeguard duty on imports of N1, 3-dimethyl butyl- N'phenylenediamine (PX-13 also known as 6 PPD), falling under tariff items 3812, 3810, 2921, 2925, 2934 and 2942 at the rate of thirty per cent ad valorem minus anti-dumping duty payable, if any , for one year and at twenty five per cent ad valorem, minus anti-dumping duty payable, if any , after that for another year. The duty is not applicable to imports from countries, notified as developing countries, other than China.
Notification No. 83/2011-Cus., Dated: August 30, 2011
Tariff Value Decreased for Brass Scrap and Increased for Poppy seeds
GOVERNMENT has decreased the tariff values of Brass Scrap (all grades) from USD 4399 to USD 4355. Tariff value of poppy seeds is increased from 2242 USD to 2281. There is no change in the value of other items.
Notification No. 63/2011-CUS (N.T.), Dated: August 30, 2011
Export of Pan Masala-Gutkha packed in plastic sachet by 100% EOU – Board Clarifies
BOARD has received references seeking clarification on the applicability of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 to the export of pan masala / gutkha packed in plastic sachets by Export Oriented Units.
Some Chief Commissioners are of the view that the manufactures of pan masala /gutkha shall be required to give an undertaking to comply with the provisions of the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011; under no circumstance should export of the goods in question be stopped or disallowed. Other Chief Commissioners had a contrary view that allowing the export of pan masala / gutkha packed in plastic sachets would be a contravention of the said Rules of 2011.
Board clarifies:
The Ministry of Environment and Forests notified the Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 on 04.02.2011 and amended the same on 02.07.2011. Rule 3(b) earlier defined a carry bag to mean “all plastic bags used to carry commodities, including self carrying features”. After 02.07.2007 this definition has been changed as “bags made from all plastic material, used for the purpose of carrying or dispensing commodities but do not include bags that constitute or form an integral part of the packaging in which goods are sealed prior to use”. On its part, Rule 3(k) earlier defined “multilayered packaging” and w.e.f. 02.07.2007 this was changed to apply to “multilayered plastic pouch or sachet” and corresponding changes have been made in Rule 3(m) and Rule 8. [how can they change it on 2.7.2007 – four years before the Rules were notified?]
Carry bags and sachets are two distinct items. In addition, the exemption from the requirement of Rule 5 is available only to a manufacture of carry bags. Thus, a unit manufacturing pan masala / gutkha cannot claim this exemption. Therefore, export of said goods in plastic sachets / plastic material in any form would be in contravention of the provisions of Plastic Waste (Management and Handing) Rules, 2011.
Board wants, “Action in respect of all past cases may therefore be finalised in the light of the clarification. Suitable Public Notice / Standing Order may be issued for guidance of all concerned in respect of all cases relating to past, present and future”.
CBEC Instruction in F.No. 528/69/2011-STO (TU) ; Dated August 30, 2011
Self-Assessment in Customs - Draft Bill of Entry and Shipping Bill Regulations Announced
CONSEQUENT to the introduction of ‘self assessment' in Customs in the Finance Act, 2011, it has become necessary to change the regulations and the forms. Accordingly Board has prepared draft 'Bill of Entry (Electronic Declaration) Regulations, 2011' and draft ' Shipping Bill (Electronic Declaration) Regulations, 2011.
Board solicits comments and suggestions on the draft Regulations from the trade and industry associations, departmental officers and others, which may be sent to Director (Customs), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs, Room No.227-B, North Block, New Delhi – 110001 or at Fax No. (011) 23092173 or at e-mail I.D.: dircus@nic.in
Draft regulations have been put up only to elicit public response. Final decision shall be taken only after due examination of the responses received. They want the feedback latest by 16th September 2011.
CBEC F. No. 450/26/2011-Cus.IV., Dated: September 01, 2011
CBDT Instructions on Monetary Limits for Appeals - Ipso facto should not be Applied
IN Instruction No. 3/2011 dated 09.02.2011, CBDT has fixed monetary limits for filing appeals in the Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court. Now the Supreme Court has opined that the Circular should not be applied ipso facto , particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect.
Recently the Supreme Court observed, “Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income - Tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters. In our view, in such cases if attention of the High Court is drawn, the High Court will not apply the Circular ipso facto. For that purpose, liberty is granted to the Department to move the High Court in two weeks.”
This would be applicable to Indirect Taxes also. Now, can the Tribunals also admit appeals on the same ground?
Please see 2011-TIOL-88-SC-IT
Dutiable and Exempted Products - Rs 1.50 CENVAT Credit taken - Demand of over Rs 30 Lakhs
AN assessee who was manufacturing dutiable and allegedly exempted goods, took a credit of approximately one rupee and fifty paise of irregular credit. The Department issued a notice demanding more than thirty lakhs of rupees as 8 percent of the value of the exempted goods. The Tribunal noted that Justifiably, this action of the original authority amused the first appellate authority. The Tribunal also observed that the cause of action for the appellant would also raise the eyebrows of any prudent person.
The Department's appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was no proper authorization.
Please see Breaking News.
Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases
Customs
Export restrictions - Relevant date - In case of factory stuffing, presentation of goods before central excise officers for examination is relevant: HC
PROHIBITION on export of Casein vide Notification No 23 (RE-2010)/2009-2014 dated 18.02.2010 – The petitioner exercising the option of factory stuffing in terms of CBEC Circular No 60/2001-Cus dated 01.11.2001, submitted the consignments for examination by the jurisdictional central excise officers before imposing the restrictions - In terms of para 9.12 of Handbook procedures 2009-14, in case of change of policy provisions, the same shall not be applicable to the consignment already handed over to Customs for examination and subsequent exports up to Public Notice/Notification – Respondents are directed to allow the exports.
Interest Tax
Whether, if assessee fails to claim refund in income tax return itself, it is not entitled to such benefits - NO, it is entitled, rules HC
THE issues before the Bench are - Whether the assessee is not entitled to refund of taxes when the same is not claimed in the income tax return form itself; Whether only the income tax return Form and the not the annexures attached are relevant to decide the entitlement issue; and Whether the writ petition is maintainable to decide on the issue as to whether or not an asset is exigible to wealth tax under the provisions of Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
Central Excise
New argumentative novelty or submissions sparkling with creative ingenuity presented with high-pressure advocacy cannot undo or compel reconsideration of orders, if not challenged: CESTAT
IT is no one's case that the department has challenged the said order at any stage. In case of any grievance against the said order, nothing prevented the department to approach the higher fora. It is pertinent that new argumentative novelty or submissions sparkling with creative ingenuity presented with high pressure advocacy cannot undo or compel reconsideration of the orders, if not challenged. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case to the lower adjudicating authority unmindful to the fact that the power of remand of Commissioner (Appeals) has been taken away by the amendment of Section 35A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of MIL India Ltd.
Goods cleared under exemption notification No 6/2000 CE by following chapter X procedure – Provisions of Rule 57 CC are applicable: HC
THE appellant is engaged in manufacture of unmachined castings which are cleared on payment of duty. Some of the goods manufactured were cleared without payment of duty on the strength of CT 2 certificates issued by the purchaser. The purchaser company is authorized to obtain unmachined casting falling under Chapter No.73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act at nil rate of duty under Notification No.6/2000 CE for the manufacture of power driven pumps set primarily designed for handling water.
See our columns Monday for the judgements
Until Monday with more DDT
Have a Nice Weekend.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com
