Financial Daily from THE HINDU group of publications
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Columns - Detaxfication
Cost accountant's mouldy certificate
At the Tribunal, the company disputed the addition of 10 per cent, contending that the suppliers of moulds did not furnish it with the info. That is `disingenuous' said Mr Gowri Shankar, Member of the Tribunal: The fact that Supreme was able to get this information "which forms the basis of the cost accountant's certificate itself exposes the fallacy of this argument." Mr Gowri Shankar, therefore, said: "The competence of the cost accountant to comment upon such a technical matter is highly open to question. The Assistant Commissioner is right in rejecting the value of the certificate."
Would a CA have made some difference?
Money in moist masala
Mr P. S. Bajaj, Tribunal Member observed that the company could have avoided the loss "by taking proper care and precautions" since "it was their duty to store the goods at a safe place." Thus, "they cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own negligence of having failed to remove the goods at the time of rain to a safer place." More important, "If they themselves stored the goods at a place where the rainwater could easily enter, they have to suffer."
Queerly, the company had obtained "compensation from the insurance company of over Rs 27 lakhs" for the goods lost.
Take a deep breath
"Provided further that in case the goods admitted into special economic zone unit from domestic tariff area, on which benefit under duty exemption pass book scheme or duty drawback has been availed, are removed as such or after subjecting them to a process not amounting to manufacture, to an export-oriented undertaking or software technology park unit or electronic hardware technology park unit directly by the special economic zone unit or through any unit in the same special economic zone or another special economic zone, the duty equal to benefit availed under duty exemption pass book scheme or duty drawback shall be liable to be paid."
That's 100-plus words.
A hand at second-hand
The Commissioner ruled in favour of the company. The Department pursued the matter before the Tribunal stating that "the goods were logically second-hand in nature", considering the year of manufacture. Since there was a restriction on import of second-hand goods, the Commissioner had erred in his decision, said the Department.
Justice K. K. Usha, Tribunal President, noted that the Department's contention was `totally baseless': "We are compelled to observe that Revenue should not have filed such a frivolous appeal which would not only go to the harassment of the assessee but would amount to wasting of time of the Tribunal."
Miss Roll that Excise tripped over
The Commissioner (Appeals) viewed miss-rolls more benignly and stated: "Miss-rolls are nothing but waste and scrap." The Revenue pursued the matter to the New Delhi CESTAT. There, Mr V. K. Agrawal, Tribunal Member, observed: "The very fact that the impugned product is known as miss-roll suggest that the product is not usable as rolls." Disappointingly for the Department, they had not brought on record any material "to show that miss-rolls are usable as rolls." A case of rolls and misses.
At the Chennai CESTAT, the Department's response to the company's contention that the Excise authorities were aware of the manner in which the goods were stocked in the open yard was to go back and verify. The appeal was therefore remanded to the original authority for re-adjudication.
One wonders how they are stacking up in the meantime.
"My inner voice tells me there would be more I-T benefits!"
"Does it mention the section numbers also?"
Stories in this Section
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | The Hindu Images | Home |
Copyright © 2004, The
Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu Business Line