SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Misc - Royalty not a tax; royalty is contractual consideration paid by mining lessee to lessor for enjoyment of mineral rights & liability to pay royalty arises out of contractual conditions of mining lease: SC CBMisc - Payments made to Government cannot be deemed to be a tax merely because statute provides for their recovery as arrears: SC CBMisc - Since power to tax mineral rights is provided for in Entry 50 of List II, Parliament cannot use its residuary powers in this subject matter: SC CBCus - Owner of goods has a liability to pay customs duty even after confiscated goods are redeemed on payment of fine - Interest follows: SCI-T- Demand notice issued mechanically merits being quashed, where passed in ignorance of assessment order giving clean chit to assessee: HCIndia discovers Lithium Resources in Mandya and Yadgiri districts of KarnatakaI-T- No disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) can be made if funds are available with the assessee, which are sufficient to meet the investment: ITATIndia's installed Nuclear Power Capacity to triple by 2031-32: MoSI-T- Penalty rightly quashed where assessment order proposing penalty is itself quashed: ITATGoyal sets USD 50 bn target for footwear industry to achieve by 2030I-T- Where public trust claims deduction under Chapter VIA & due to absence of separate provision in ITR for Section 80GGA at time of filing it, then claim being clubbed u/s 80G is valid: ITATIndian-origin German citizen nabbed with 6 kg of cocaine at IGI AirportIndia to remain steadfast in commitment to nurturing adolescents' talents: Health SecyAI-based SearchGPT to compete with Google: OpenAII-T- Assessee's acceptance of the cash in the form of SBNs, assessee being an Urban Cooperative Bank, which is not being covered by the RBI Circular, cannot be considered as unexplained for addition U/s. 68 of the Act: ITATDelhi liquor scam: United Spirits CEO summonedVAT - burden of proof lies with Department to verify & approve refunds to ultimate taxpayers: HCBiden to attend QUAD meeting to be held in New Delhi this yearST - Appellant is entitled to avail CENVAT Credit on re-insurance of motor vehicles and credit availed by it during relevant period from April, 2011 to March, 2012 on this score were all admissible credit: CESTATChinese youth furious over appeal to raise retirement ageST - As there is no positive act established against appellant with regard to suppression of facts, the period being transitional period, invocation of extended period was set aside: CESTATUS & allies allege North Korean hackers of stealing military secretsCus - Assessee-company is not liable to pay interest on deferential Customs duty arising out of the final assessment of bills of entry: CESTATMexican drug lords arrested in USCX - Cenvat credit of input services as per Rule 6(5) of CCR 2004, is allowed, even if such services are partly used for exempted businesses: CESTATNew Income tax Code to be developed internally by CBDT, says Revenue SecretaryCus - Department has not established any positive act on the part of appellant in regard to suppression of facts with intent to evade Customs duty, no grounds found for invocation of extended period, demand of CVD along with interest and imposition of penalties cannot sustain: CESTATKejriwal to remain in judicial custody till Aug 8CX - Refund of pre-deposit is governed by Section 35FF of Central Excise Act, 1944 and rate of interest is governed by statutory provisions and notifications issued in this regard, appellants are entitled for payment of interest as per provisions of Section 35FF and at the rate prescribed therein: CESTAT
 
Tariff Value Notification No 36/2001 Cus (NT) comes into effect only on or after 06.08.2001 - Telangana & AP High Court follows judicial discipline and follows SC ruling as High Court cannot hold SC ruling as per incuriam

By TIOL News Service

HYDERABAD, JULY 19, 2016: THE question involved in the Writ Petitions is - what is the effective date of Notification No 36/2001 Cus (NT) dated 03.08.2001? Is it effective from 03.08.2001 as claimed by the CBEC vide Circular No 46/2001-Cus, Dated : August 10, 2001 or from 06.08.2001, when the gazette was made available to the public.

The issue has already been decided by the Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Param Industries Ltd - 2015-TIOL-140-SC-CUS, wherein it was held that Notification No.36 of 2001 came into force only with effect from 06.08.2001 and, consequently, the tariff value prescribed under the said notification cannot be applied retrospectively on the goods imported earlier on 03.08.2001.

But what makes these Writ Petitions interesting is they are before the very same High Court, a Division Bench of which had held that the Notification comes into effect from 03.08.2001 in M/s K.G.F. Cotton Pvt Ltd in W.P. Nos. 18440, 20373 and 18466 of 2001, decided on 20-2-2013, while dissenting with the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Param Industries case and relying on the judgements of the Supreme Court in case of M /s. Pankaj Jain Agencies Vs UOI and UOI Vs Ganesh Das Bhojraj . Can the High Court rule the Supreme Court decision in case of Param Industries Ltd as per incuriam ?

The High Court observed:

+ Can the High Court hold that the Division Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Param Industries Ltd is per incuriam as it was rendered in ignorance of the earlier Division Bench judgments of the Supreme Court in M/s. Pankaj Jain Agencies and Ganesh Das Bhojraj ? Is it open to the High Court to hold, on the material on record, that Notification No.36/2001 came into force on 03.08.2001 itself, and thereby negate the decision of the Supreme Court in Param Industries Ltd that the said Notification No.36/2001 came into force on or after 06.08.2001?

+ It is impermissible for the High Court to hold that Notification No.36/2001 came into force on 03.08.2001 for the reason that it was published in the Official Gazette on that day, as that would fall foul of the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Param Industries Ltd, wherein the very same Customs Notification No.36/2001 was held to have come into force on or after 06.08.2001, and not on the date of its publication as reflected in the Gazette as 03.08.2001. Article 141 of the Constitution stipulates that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.

+ The singular Constitutional role of the Supreme Court under the Constitution, and correspondingly of the assisting role of all authorities - civil or judicial in the territory of India - towards it, mandates the High Court, which is one such judicial authority covered under Article 144 of the Constitution, to act in aid of the Supreme Court. The order of the Supreme Court is a judicial order, and is otherwise enforceable throughout the territory of India under Article 142 of the Constitution. The High Court is bound to come in aid of the Supreme Court in having its order worked out. While the High Court is independent, and is a co-equal institution, the Constitutional scheme and judicial discipline requires that the High Court should give due regard to the orders of the Supreme Court which are binding on all Courts within the territory of India.

+ As the Supreme Court, in Param Industries Ltd, has held that Notification No.36/2001 came into force on or after 06.08.2001, the action of the respondents in applying the tariff value prescribed therein, for the earlier import of R.B.D. Palmolein oil on 03.08.2001, is illegal. Customs duty on R.B.D. Palmolein oil, imported on 03.08.2001, could only have been levied on its invoice value, and not on the tariff value prescribed subsequently in Notification No.36/2001 dated 03.08.2001. Both the Writ Petitions are allowed.

(See 2016-TIOL-1429-HC-AP-CUS)


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Effective date for notifications

Why all this confusion on effective date ofa notification? Why not the CBEC start issue of notifications with specific date of effect instead of the wordings now.Even half yearly notifications to be issued effective from 1st april and 1st oct of every FY could be considered.Nothing will happen if the notifications are issued in advance .Recall the budgetary changes in 1980s and the present system.So an easy and assessee friendly attitude to be adopted by CBEC so as to avoid this type of un productive litigations.

Posted by Unnikrishnan V
 

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Dr. Shailendra Kumar, Chairman, TIOL Knowledge Foundation, addressing the gathering

TOP NEWS


AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST