• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

`Bureautocrat'

D. Murali

WHAT is `autocratic manner'? CEGAT, Bangalore, had to consider this question when dealing with the Rajashree Cement case. The issue related to availing of Modvat credit; the Department was of the view that the company had taken excess credit. The company responded that the credit was not utilised; and, subsequently, it reversed the credit before the Department slapped it with a show-cause notice.

The CE Asst Commissioner was, however, not pleased. Imposing a Rs 4 lakh penalty on the company, the AC said: ``Assessee was acting in an autocratic manner as if they can get the statutes changed to serve their own interest as and when they desire. This attitude of the assessee shows clear disregard for the law of the land.''

The Commissioner, benignly, reduced the penalty to Rs 1 lakh. When, at the CEGAT, the company agitated against this reduced penalty, Mr S. S. Sekhon, Tribunal member, observed: ``The very fact of representing against a levy and taking credit and not util ising the same and thereafter, on being directed by the Departmental authorities, reversing the same under protest, to our mind, is not an act of an autocrat. It appears to be the act of a commercial enterprise seeking redressal in the proper form.''

If only bureaucrats like the AC became autocrats...

Amateur job

THE Satyendra Kumar case, which came up before the Calcutta CEGAT, is about small-scale smuggling. When SK's motorcycle was intercepted by Customs officials, they found the pillion rider, RP, carrying a Japanese laser printer.

SK made contradictory statements: First, that he was going to see his sister and gave RP a lift without knowing that the latter had smuggled goods; and later, that they both were working together, for Rs 150 per trip. Two other things went against SK: Th at he gave his father's name wrong, and that he tried to escape from the Customs officials.

Professionals do not make such mistakes. They have their story-line neat and ready.

Skin care

THE Mumbai CEGAT had to split hairs on toilet waters in the ICPA Health Products case. The company manufactured `moyzen liquid', containing liquid paraffin and isopropyl myristate, and classified the same as ``perfumes and toilet waters''. The label on p roduct described it as ``moisturising liquid for dry skin disorders''. But the CE Department wanted to classify the product as ``beauty or make-up preparations for the care of the skin, including sunscreen and suntan preparations''.

Mr J. H. Joglekar, Tribunal member, made a detailed analysis thus: ``The distinction between perfumes and toilet waters is made by the alcohol content by volume. Whereas in perfumes the alcohol content would be 94-96 per cent, the remaining being the per fuming agent, in toilet waters the alcohol would be as low as 25 per cent.''

``The purpose of toilet waters is limited and that is to impart fragrance to the body. No further contribution is expected of them. The preparations for the care of the skin may be perfumed but imparting fragrance is not their basic function.''

Also, `moyzen' had been certified by skin specialists to be of use to patients suffering from ichthyosis _ where the skin develops fish-like scales due to excessive dryness. Based on all these, the CEGAT ruled that the product rightly belonged to the ski n care category.

It is common for consumers to be confused whether a bottled product is just a perfume or it goes deeper into the skin. But, ICPA is a case of the manufacturer being confused thus.

*****

Tailpiece

``What do you do when you see a tax evader face to face?''

``I turn away from the mirror.''

(e-mail: dmurali@thehindu.co.in)