The designated authority, in its final findings in mid-term review, had recommended continued imposition of anti-dumping duty on all imports of the subject goods originating in, or exported from, the People's Republic of China. 

And the Government has done so. Notification No. 45/2006–Customs, is suitably amended.

Notification No. 81/2009- Cus ., Dated: July 13, 2009

Appeal to High Court – Condonation of Delay – the Two Revenue Boards have no Co-ordination.

It is said that in Government, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. In Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise V/s. Hongo India (P) Limited & Another reported in 2009-TIOL-48-SC- CX -LB, the Supreme Court had clearly held that in Central Excise cases the High Court has no power to condone delay in filing appeal.

Finance Bill, 2009 proposes to amend the Central Excise Act and Customs Act to provide for the power to High Court to condone delay with retrospective effect to undo the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Hongo India case.

But what about Income Tax? The Income Tax Act has a Section 260A similar to Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. Now will the Hongo India case apply to Income Tax cases? If so, why the Government did not propose an amendment in the Income Tax Act in the Finance Bill? Apparently the CBDT is not aware of the Hongo India case and the CBEC has not told them. They forget the fact they share the same Finance Minister! What would have been the FM's reply if an MP asked him why there was no similar retrospective amendment in the Income Tax Act? Fortunately not many MPs read the Finance Bill and this time around the FM had not given them much time.

Anyway the Bombay High Court has held that the Hongo India case is applicable to Income Tax cases and the High Court has no power to condone delay. Now this Section 260A of the Income Tax Act also has to be amended with retrospective effect – and we may have to wait till the next Budget for that.

We will bring you the High Court order tomorrow.

Budget almost passed – Jindal wants Rupees to be accepted in duty free shops

The Finance Bill is almost passed and the FM has already replied to the debate; it's only a matter of days before the Finance Bill becomes the Finance Act 2009. Participating in the debate, Congress MP, Naveen Jindal said, “Earlier, the duty free shops at the airports did not use to accept Indian currency. After a lot of efforts of five years, they started accepting Indian rupees from the Indians. But the foreigners, when they are going back, are left with the Indian rupees. It is a matter of shame actually that we refuse to take that currency. We must change this.”

Has the CBEC an answer? The FM did not reply!!!

Jindal also wanted the MPLAD fund to be increased from Rs. 2 crore to Rs. 5 crore .

In his reply, the FM noted that ‘More than 94 Members have participated in the discussion. In addition to that, 34 Members have made their observations by submitting written responses, placed on the Table of the House. Quite a large number of them are first-timers who made their maiden speeches. But their observations, comments, criticisms and analysis were mature and beneficial to me and to all my colleagues. I have no doubt that their presence will enrich this House. The keen interest my young colleagues have shown by participating both in the Railway Budget and in the General Budget, clearly demonstrates that the Indian Parliament is entering into a new phase.”

Surprise Amartya Sen – Sonia Gandhi

The FM concluded his reply to the debate on Budget 2009 by quoting Sonia Gandhi, “Let us surprise Professor Amartya Sen by giving up our favourite trait of being ‘unendingly argumentative' and for a change let us be ‘effectively collaborative'.”

Amartya Sen had written a wonderful book, “The Argumentative Indian”.

In Case of Emergency - ICE

We all carry our mobile phones with names and numbers stored in its memory but nobody, other than ourselves, knows which of these numbers belong to our closest family or friends.

If we were to be involved in an accident or were taken ill, the people attending us would have our mobile phone but wouldn't know who to call. Yes, there are hundreds of numbers stored but which one is the contact person in case of an emergency? Hence this "ICE" (In Case of Emergency) Campaign

The concept of "ICE" is catching on quickly. It is a method of contact during emergency situations. As cell phones are carried by the majority of the population, all you need to do is store the number of a contact person or persons who should be contacted during emergency under the name "ICE" (In Case Of Emergency).

The idea was thought up by a paramedic who found that when he went to the scenes of accidents, there were always mobile phones with patients, but they didn't know which number
to call. He therefore thought that it would be a good idea if there was a nationally recognized name for this purpose.

In an emergency situation, Emergency Service personnel and hospital Staff would be able to quickly contact the right person by simply dialling the number you have stored as "ICE."

For more than one contact name simply enter ICE1 , ICE2 and ICE3 etc. A great idea that will make a difference!

Let's spread the concept of ICE by storing an ICE number in our mobile phones today!!!!

ICE will speak for you when you are not able to.

This has nothing to do with taxation, but is a message from DDT in social interest.

Jurisprudentiol–Thursday's cases

Service Tax

Constitutional validity of Service Tax on hire purchase and leasing upheld: Madras High Court

Article 268-A of the Constitution of India empowers the Union to levy tax on service. Entry 92 (c) was also introduced in the Union list for the levy of service tax.

All fine, but the Constitution 88th Amendment Act which inserted the Article 268A and Entry 92(c) has a provision

It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.

Though the Amendment was enacted on 15.1.2004, the Government is yet to notify the date from which it is effective.

So.... the litigation continues.

Income Tax

Income Tax Appeal – High Court has no power to condone delay: Bombay High Court

Once the Apex Court has held that the High Court has no power to condone delay in filing Appeal under Section 35 G of the Excise Act, we have no option but to hold that this Court has no power to condone delay under Section 260 A of the I.T. Act because Section 260 A of the I.T. Act is pari materia with Section 35 G of the Excise Act.

Central Excise

Signages erected at the IOCL petrol pumps are not immovable goods – demand of duty upheld - CESTAT

Signages are not immovable goods as contended by the appellants – Signages are capable of being assembled at the premises of the appellants and do not emerge as an immovable property on assembly or erection - An item which is fixed in the earth can continue to be movable and excisable if the same is capable of being shifted from one place to another without having to dismantle the same into the constituent components. Undisputedly signages are capable of being assembled at the premises of the appellants and then transferred to the site of its erection after dismantling the same. Demand of duty and invoking larger period upheld penalty on the Managing Director upheld but quantum reduced

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a nice day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com

Search Cases
Search News