TIOL-DDT 2386
01.07.2014
Tuesday

AS many as 19 IRS (Cus & Excise) officers are missing. The Board does not know their whereabouts. In a letter dated 2nd June 2014, Ms. Mala Srivastava, the then Member (P&V) wrote to the Chief Commissioners asking them to send the original records of 19 missing IRS officers about whose whereabouts, the Board has no clue. The Member wanted the Chief Commissioners to respond in their signature latest by 15th June 2014.

Now the present Member (P&V) Ms Joy Kumari Chander wants the Chief Commissioners to give their personal attention and send her the report by 4th July 2014.

But what can the Chief Commissioners do if they also do not know where these missing officers are hiding?

Meenu G Krishnan is a 1980 batch IRS officer. She was promoted as Commissioner on 01.11.2002. The CBEC letter says that the office of the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise Zone Mumbai I vide F.No. 11/39- 3/Admn/CCO/MCX-I/2010 dt, 15.07.2010 has reported that E.O.L.was sanctioned by the Ministry to Ms. Meenu Gopal Krishnan, Joint Commissioner vide F.No. PF/444/80-Ad.1I dt 07.03.2003 up to 31.07.2003. No other information available.

There is some incongruity here - she was promoted as Commissioner in November 2002 and four months later she was given leave as Joint Commissioner! But anyway after 2003, nobody knows where she is. Had she continued as Commissioner, she would have become a Chief Commissioner by now. CBEC's Civil List says she is a Commissioner on leave since 31.07.2003.

Anil Singh Bedi an Additional Commissioner was transferred from Bhopal Central Excise to NACEN, Faridabad in 2005. He did not join there and since then there is no news from him.

Rajesh Nagpal is figuring in the list as an Additional Commissioner, but the Board has no idea where he is. He was promoted as Additional Commissioner in 2002.

Rajyashri S Waghray is a 1990 batch IRS officer, missing since 1999.

Vinay Kumar Bawa was promoted as Assistant Commissioner in 2002 and is not seen since. If he was traced, he would have retired in May 2014.

Tough job for the Chief Commissioners to trace these missing officers. In these days of satellite communication, is it difficult to find people. Normally missing Government servants are either abroad or hiding in India. It shouldn't be difficult to trace them and if you really don't want them, just leave them alone and treat them as dismissed from service after a due notice in the newspapers.

Three years ago, Board had circulated a similar list, but I found that one of the missing Deputy Commissioners in the list was very much working in a Custom House. Please see DDT 1588 - 13.04.2011

CBEC Member (P&V) letter in F.No.C-50/36/2014-Ad.II, Dated: June 25, 2014

RBI will not issue clarifications on Tax matters

IN Circular No. 56 dated November 26, 2002 and Circular No. 3 dated July 19, 2007, RBI issued certain instructions regarding the procedure to be followed in respect of deduction of tax at source while allowing remittances to the non-residents.

RBI informs the Authorised Dealers that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has revised the existing instructions to be followed while allowing remittances to the non-residents, with effect from October 1, 2013. It has issued Income Tax (14th Amendment) Rules, 2013 vide Notification No. S.O 2659(E) dated September 2, 2013 on furnishing of information under Section 195(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and prescribed the rules and forms to this effect .

Reserve Bank of India has reviewed the policy relating to issue of instructions under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), clarifying tax issues. It has now been decided that Reserve Bank of India will not issue any instructions under the FEMA, in this regard. It shall be mandatory on the part of Authorised Dealers to comply with the requirement of the tax laws, as applicable.

A P (DIR Series) CIRCULAR No. 151/RBI., Dated: June 30, 2014

DGFT Notifies SIONs and asks for data

DGFT has notified 14 SIONs pertaining to product group "Chemical & Allied Products". Manufactures of export products covered under these SIONs and the Export Promotion Councils concerned should submit production and consumption data as soon as possible but not later than Thursday, the 31 st July, 2014 so that review is taken up. Failure to provide the data, so required by the date so specified would result in stoppage of the benefit of Advance Authorization / DFIA for export products covered by these SIONs.

DGFT Public Notice No. 63/(RE: 2014)/2009-2014, Dated: June 27, 2014

Clarification regarding filing of Form DPT4 under Companies Act, 2013

AS per section 74(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 made thereunder, companies are required to file a statement regarding deposits existing as on date of commencement of the Act within a period of 3 months from such commencement.

The time for filing of said statement has expired on 30-06-2014.

It has been decided to grant extension of time for a period of 2 months i.e. up to 31-08-2014 without any additional fee in terms of section 403 of the Act to enable the companies for filing of statement under Form DPT4 with the Registrar.

MoCA General Circular No. 27/2014 Dated: June 30, 2014

Tariff Value of Gold, Silver increased

THE  Government has increased the Tariff value of Gold from 411 USD to 428 USD per 10 gms and that of Silver from 632 to 688 USD per kilogram with effect from 30.06.2014. The Tariff values of many oils have been reduced. Tariff value of Brass scrap sees a slight increase. However, the Tariff values of Poppy Seeds and Areca Nuts remain same. The Tariff values as on 13.06.2014 and with effect from  30.06.2014  are as under:  

Notification No. 48/2014-Customs (NT), Dated: June 30 2014

Company Law - Invitation for NCD

AS per Rule 14(2)(a) of the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014

A company shall not make a private placement of its securities unless -

(a) the proposed offer of securities or invitation to subscribe securities has been previously approved by the shareholders of the company, by a Special Resolution, for each of the Offers or Invitations:

Provided that in the explanatory statement annexed to the notice for the general meeting the basis or justification for the price (including premium, if any) at which the offer or invitation is being made shall be disclosed.

Provided further that in case of offer or invitation for non-convertible debentures, it shall be sufficient if the company passes a previous special resolution only once in a year for all the offers or invitation for such debentures during the year.

Now the Government has amended these rules to insert another proviso to stipulate that in case of an offer or invitation for non-convertible debentures referred to in the second proviso, made within a period of six months from the date of commencement of these rules, the special resolution referred to in the second proviso may be passed within the said period of six months from the date of commencement of these rules.

MoCA Notification, Dated: June 30, 2014

Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Rules, 2014 - Notified

GOVERNMENT has notified the Companies (Cost Records and Audit) Rules, 2014. These rules supersede eight sets of rules notified under the Companies Act, 1956. The new rules specify four classes of companies which shall be required to maintain cost records and who will be subject to cost audit.

Every company engaged in a strategic industry and covered under these rules shall be required to get its cost records audited. They are required to appoint a cost auditor.

The requirement for cost audit under these rules shall not be applicable to a company:

(i) whose revenue from exports, in foreign exchange, exceeds seventy five per cent of its total revenue or

(ii) which is operating from a special economic zone.

MoCA Notification, Dated: June 30, 2014

  Jurisprudentiol - Wednesday's cases

Customs

Drawings and designs imported through courier - Cannot be classified as “Books” under 49.01 as claimed by the appellant - Demand of duty upheld - CESTAT

THE issue relates to classification of Drawings and Designs imported by the appellant through courier. The appellant had sought classification under 99.10 being for instructional purposes. Alternatively, they claimed classification under 49.01 and claimed exemption under Notification No 38/94. The issue is now decided by the Tribunal pursuant to the remand directions by the Supreme Court.

According to revenue, the Adjudicating Authority held that the drawing and designs imported were not "books" but being "goods" were classifiable under heading 98.03. The goods imported were neither part of book or booklet for which that is not classifiable under heading 49.01 as claimed by the appellant. He rightly denied the classification sought by the appellant. Also he further examined the intent of the Notification No.86/94-CUS, dated 01.03.1994 and held that the exemption cannot be granted as a matter of right, but deniable as a matter of public policy. If the object of the Notification is defeated, no question of grant of exemption under that arises.

Income Tax

Whether ITAT is required to mechanically uphold Sec 153C proceedings merely because it had done so in some other Assessment Years - NO: High Court

THE assessee is a trust established in the year 1990 by a Trust Deed, which promotes education, medical research and health and relief as its objects. A search operation was carried in the premises of the accounts officer of the Trust, which lead to seizure of cash and some loose documents. The statement of the accounts officer was also recorded. The AO initiated proceedings u/s 153C against the Trust. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was allowed. Dissatisfied by the order, the Departmental Representative submitted that there was enough material which was of incriminating nature and that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with such an exercise of the AO.

The issues before the Bench are - Whether Tribunal should have upheld the proceedings u/s 153C against the assessee even in the absence of any incriminating evidence, merely because it has done so in some other AYs; Whether Tribunal's observations must be held as confined and restricted to the facts of each case and AY and whether relying upon such observations of the Tribunal applicable to some other AY, the Revenue can initiate proceedings against the assessee. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.

Central Excise

Valuation - If the intention of the legislature was to cover toilet paper also under Section 4A of the CEA, 1944, then the same would have been specifically mentioned in the notification - Demand of Rs.1.19 Cr set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT

THE appellants are manufacturers of toilet paper [CETH 4818 10 00] and the Revenue does not dispute this - that is, classification.

However, it is the allegation of the Revenue that the said ‘toilet paper' falls under Serial No.55 of the table annexed to Notification No. 49/2008-CE (NT) dated 24/12/2008 and, therefore, is liable to duty under Section 4A of the CEA, 1944 i.e. on the basis of RSP declared on the packages. The assessee, obviously, is resorting to section 4 valuation.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a nice day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com