|
||
|
|
|
|
Strengthen the CESTAT - give their Lordships some facilities TIOL-DDT 805 CESTAT is almost equal to the High Court. At least some of their orders are directly appealable to Supreme Court. They deal with cases involving hundreds of Crores. Recently the Madras High Court Chief Justice said that the High Court deals with petty cases while the CESTAT deals with cases of high importance involving huge revenue. The Tribunal is headed by a President who is a retired Chief Justice of a High Court. Each judge in the Tribunal hears at least 30 cases a day and pass orders – orders which have over the years attained an unparalleled status and passing the shrewd scrutiny of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. But what are the facilities given to them? They sit in rooms, which are smaller than the ones which Assistant Commissioners in the field have. Many of the rooms do not have attached toilets. Many of the Members are not provided with cars – even the ones who have cars have Maruti Cars which are more than ten years old. The Members are frequently asked to sit in Benches other than in their places of posting and when they go to the Capital or another city, there is nobody to receive them at the airports and they don't get a proper accommodation. The clerical and secretarial support they have are pathetically poor. The Technical Members of the CESTAT are either former Commissioners or Chief Commissioners of the Department and as Commissioner/ CC, they enjoy tremendous power and privileges. They have access to any number of vehicles and protocol officers and an army of subordinates to do all their work. When such an officer joins a higher post like Member of the CESTAT, he would expect to have the existing facilities if not more, but what he finds is that he does not have a car, nobody helps him in his travel, accommodation or any personal work he has to attend. What would be the incentive for a CC to join as Member of the CESTAT, if he has to face such humiliating situations? Will anyone join CESTAT just because he gets two more years of sarkari status? And why should a retired Chief Justice or judge of a High Court join the CESTAT, which is not able to provide minimum facilities for the Hon'ble judges? And what will happen if their Lordships seek assistance from wily lawyers or their clients? A judge who does not have a vehicle to go home from the Tribunal can ask a lawyer for a lift and he would get the best car in the town, not only for getting dropped at home but to go shopping with his wife later. A judge struggling for accommodation in an alien city can get star accommodation – all that he has to do is to ask an advocate. Are you driving your judges to such pathetic situations? But judges are also human beings and they have human frailties, human temptations and human needs and when the system does not provide them the minimum needs of life – well what happens, is a tragedy. The Revenue Department considers the CESTAT as a subordinate office and the highest officer in the Ministry who would decide on facilities to CESTAT would be an under-secretary! Former President Justice Abichandani told me that he knew the FM and the Revenue Secretary, but obviously that did not help in the Government providing more facilities to the CESTAT! The FM is a senior advocate of eminent stature and at least his wife had appeared before CESTAT several times and so he knows the importance of CESTAT. Mr. Chidambaram is the right person who can do something to sustain the status of the CESTAT. At least give the poor judges some good cars. What prompted me to write this? A TIOL correspondent saw a CESTAT Member going home from the Tribunal in a shared auto rickshaw. He (our reporter) was too terrified to take a picture but I told him, “don't worry, you can get that snap any day” Will the FM/RS/FS do something? Guidelines for Compounding of Offences under Customs and Central Excise CBEC reminds that all the applications for compounding of offences must be disposed of within six months. In this regard, the Committee on Subordinate Legislation has observed that this time limit is not being followed, thereby defeating the purpose of the scheme. Therefore, it is once again reiterated that all the applications should be decided within six months by the Compounding Authority. For this it should also be ensured that the Reporting Authority submits the report in time to the Compounding Authority, so that the application is decided expeditiously. Board wants the field formations to be informed accordingly. F.No 267/22/05- CX -8 Dated: February 7, 2008 Guidelines for grant of benefits under Focus Product Scheme for Export of Handloom Products bearing ‘Handloom Mark ' Under the Focus Product Scheme, for exports w.e.f 1.4.2006, all Handloom products bearing ‘Handloom Mark' are entitled for benefits under the scheme. The following procedure shall be adopted for grant of benefits under the Scheme: 1. Exporters shall mention the Handloom Mark Label Numbers, as obtained from ‘Textile Committee' on any one of the export documents (Shipping bills/Invoice/Packing List). 2. Each piece of export item shall have one Handloom Mark Label Numbers. For example, if 100 pieces of Handloom products are exported; any one of the export documents shall specify 100 ‘Handloom Mark Label Numbers'. 3. RA shall grant the benefits using Focus Product Scheme Code 45, upon submission of such application from exporters of Handloom Products. Any one of the export documents passed by Customs which bears Handloom Mark Label Numbers should be acceptable as proof for grant of benefits under the scheme. POLICY CIRCULAR No. 30 (RE-07)/2004- 2009 Dated : February 5, 2008 Jurispruden tiol  – Monday's cases
Customs Import of second hand photocopiers – no question of law involved in Tribunal reducing RF and penalty: Madras High Court THE first respondents imported old used photocopiers and filed bills of entry for clearance of the goods under OGL . The value of the goods as invoiced by the Overseas Supplier was declared in the bills of entry. These imports were made subsequent to the amendment of Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy by which the import of second hand photocopiers would be allowed only against a specific licence. After presentation of the bills of entry by the first respondent importers, the goods were subjected to examination by Officers of Customs, as also by a local chartered engineer. The Chartered Engineer appraised the value of the goods to be higher than what has been declared by the importer. On the basis of the result of investigation, the Department issued show cause notice to the importers calling for their objections as to why the imported goods should not be confiscated for want of import licence, as to why penalty should not be imposed on the importers and as to why the value appraised by the Chartered Engineer should not be adopted for the purpose of assessment. Income Tax Income Tax - Sec 222(1) - attachment of property - if property was never shown in name of petitioner's father, it cannot be attached for father's tax arrears : Bombay HC AT the centre of the dispute is the Sec 222(1) of the Income Tax Act. This section is invoked by the Tax Recovery Officer to recover dues from defaulting taxpayer. To make up for the same, a Tax Recovery Officer is empowered to attach and sell the taxpayer's movable and immovable property. And this is what was done in the instant case but thanks to the matrix of unique facts and circumstances, the Revenue lost the case. How? Central Excise Rule 16 of CER , 2002 - Returned goods subjected to process resulting in emergence of waste and scrap - lesser duty paid on clearance – since no specific manufacturing process was carried out, assessee is required to reverse credit taken on returned goods : Tribunal MAYBE, it's time for bringing an amendment to Rule 16 of the CER , 2002. As is known, rule 16 allows a manufacturer to take Cenvat credit on the “final products” returned to his factory, after they have been initially cleared on payment of duty, for the purpose of being re-made, refined, re -conditioned or for any other reason. The rule further states that if the process to which the goods are subjected to does not amount to manufacture, the manufacturer shall pay an amount [ cenvatable ] equal to the Cenvat credit taken & in any other case he shall pay duty at the rate applicable on the date of removal and on the value determined under section 3 or section 4/ 4A of the CEA '44 , as the case may be. As to what would be the position if the goods that were returned have been subjected to a manufacturing process that went haywire resulting in the generation of scrap, which too is excisable? Would there be a problem if the assessee discharges Central Excise duty on this manufactured “scrap” & which invariably would on the lower side vis-à-vis the Cenvat credit taken in the first place? See our columns Monday for the judgements Until Monday with more DDT Have a nice weekend. Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com |
