Originally posted by : Harsh
	And Shashank whats about banking services,while dealing in  sale and purchase of foriegn currency with another bank,is there any exemtion,i mean sevice tax would be liable only when dealing with person other than bank Actually i have written that even when dealing with other bank sevice tax would be charged,please clear my doubt

service provided by a schedule bank to other schedule bank related to sale/purchase of foriegn currency is exempt....

Check out my answer on DT old May 2010

https://www.caclubindia.com/forum/my-solution-on-dt-old-may-2010-83765.asp

Dear Shashank,

Hats off to you dear. Very good attempt.

5. Is an exporter, who has been held guilty of exporting ‘prohibited goods’, entitled to an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation under section 125?

CCus. (Preventive), West Bengal v. India Sales International 2009 (241) E.L.T. 182 (Cal.)

Learned Counsel for Revenue submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in granting an exporter, who had been held guilty of exporting ‘prohibited goods’, an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation under section 125 of the Customs Act. He argued that word which had been used by the legislators under section 125 as ‘prohibited’ had to be read as ‘prohibited absolutely’.

The High Court opined that the Court cannot insert any word in the statute since it is within the domain of legislators. However, the Court has power to interpret the same without inserting anything. Whatever the legislators think fit and proper, can be legislated.

The High Court rejected the Revenue’s contention that word ‘prohibited’ as used by legislators under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be read as ‘prohibited absolutely’. It held that the Court cannot insert the word which has not been used in section 125 by legislators. Further, the option given under section 125 in respect of the prohibited goods and the right given to the authorities for redemption of the confiscated goods in question cannot be taken away by the Court by inserting a particular word therein.

Hence, the Court viewed that the Tribunal had the right to pass an order by giving an option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation of goods.

Notification No. 33/2009 ST dated 01.09.2009

has exempted the taxable service provided to any person in relation to transport of goods by rail from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon provided, nothing contained in this notification shall apply to any service provided or to be provided, by any person other than government railway, in relation to transport of goods in containers by rail.

In other words, the exemption has been granted to service provided or to be provided, by government railway, in relation to transport of goods in containers by rail.

I WANT TO KNOW SOMETHING FROM YOU AS YOU HAVE DONE GOOD PAPER MY QUESTION IS THAT

1. I HAVE NOT MENTIONED THE CASE LAW IN ALL THE THREE QUES. IN EXCISE AND GAVE VIEW THAT DEPARTMENT IS CORRECT.

2. IN CUSTOM ALSO I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE SONY INDIA LTD. CASE LAW.

3. IN SERVICE TAX LAST 5 MARKS QUESTION WAS NOT ANSEWRED CORRECTLY.

REST EXCISE WAS WELL AND CUSTOM AND EXCISE ALSO I HAVE WRITTEN THE ANSWERS IN GENERAL FORMAT.

SO I THINK THAT IN EXCISE MY 14 MARKS WAS WRONG IN CUSTOM 15 MARKS AND IN SERVICE TAX 5 MARKS WAS WRONG.

I HAVE ANSWERED ALL 100 MARKS PAPER AND ALL THE THREE PAPER WASVERY GOOD SO WHAT IS YOUR COMMENT ON IT.

REPLY SOON

Originally posted by : Ghanshyam Joshi
	Notification No. 33/2009 ST dated 01.09.2009 has exempted the taxable service provided to any person in relation to transport of goods by rail from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon provided, nothing contained in this notification shall apply to any service provided or to be provided, by any person other than government railway, in relation to transport of goods in containers by rail. In other words, the exemption has been granted to service provided or to be provided, by government railway, in relation to transport of goods in containers by rail.

but i have seen in recent amendments that now they have removed goverment railways also, please check it and thanks for you input.

@ anurag, i think case law and section give u grace 1 marks. but if you have not written then also dont worry. You have written 66 % correct. I think you will pass. Best of luck dear.

What was the answer to "Prohibited Goods" - fine in lieu of confiscation???

Originally posted by : Ghanshyam Joshi
	What was the answer to "Prohibited Goods" - fine in lieu of confiscation???

department can take fine in lieu of confiscation and i have quoted the India sales case law

I WANA KNOW THAT HOW WILL U ASSES MY PAPER BY NOTING THE FOLLOWING DETAILS

1. I HAVE ATTEMPTED FULL 100 MARKS PAPER.

2. I HAVE NOT QUOTED ANY CASE LAW AND GAVE DECISIONS IN FAVOUR OF DEPARTMENT BY TAKING THE PERFECT VIEW.

3.IN EXCISE 15 MARKS & IN CUSTOMS 14 MARKS AND IN ST 5 MARKS HAVE NOT ANSEWRED CORRECTLY.

4. REST OF THE PART OF THE PAPER WAS DONE WELL.

5. MY FIRST THREE PAPER WAS VERY GOOD SO WHAT IS YOUR COMMENT ON MY GROUP CLEARENCE.

REPLY SOON

can you please post the Soni India Case? I think I wrote opposite answer>>>

Originally posted by : anurag shukla
	I WANA KNOW THAT HOW WILL U ASSES MY PAPER BY NOTING THE FOLLOWING DETAILS 1. I HAVE ATTEMPTED FULL 100 MARKS PAPER. 2. I HAVE NOT QUOTED ANY CASE LAW AND GAVE DECISIONS IN FAVOUR OF DEPARTMENT BY TAKING THE PERFECT VIEW. 3.IN EXCISE 15 MARKS & IN CUSTOMS 14 MARKS AND IN ST 5 MARKS HAVE NOT ANSEWRED CORRECTLY. 4. REST OF THE PART OF THE PAPER WAS DONE WELL. 5. MY FIRST THREE PAPER WAS VERY GOOD SO WHAT IS YOUR COMMENT ON MY GROUP CLEARENCE. REPLY SOON

I think u have written correctly 66% so if content is good then i think you will get min. 45 but dont have idea about ur other subject. If u have excelled in any one subject then you will clear it this time.

Originally posted by : Ghanshyam Joshi
	can you please post the Soni India Case? I think I wrote opposite answer>>>

Goods imported in CKD condition: Rule 2(a) of Rules for Interpretation of Tariff applicable only —

if all components intended to make a final product are presented at the same time for
Customs clearance.

When imported goods presented unassembled / disassembled can be put together by means
of a simple fixing device or by riveting or welding.
Goods requiring complicated process to make into the final product, cannot be considered as
unfinished goods having essential character of complete articles. So, components of Colour
Televisions imported cannot be considered as CTV imported in CKD.
Sony India Ltd 2008 (231)ELT 385 (SC)

For question relating to Railway services provided by Govt. There was an amendment by FA 2009. But later on, separate notification got issued(E/N/33/2009) by virtue of which Railway services provided by Govt. got exempt, thus nullifying the effect of amendment to some extent

It is clearly mentioned in Deepak Gupta Sir's amendment module.

Just to Remove confusion regarding the service tax liability on transportaion of goods by railways!!!

applicable for May 2010

The Service Tax on transportation of goods by railway was introduced in the Budget 2009 last year by the Finance Minister. With the levy of service tax, provisions for abatement and exemptions were also introduced. The levy was to come into effect on September 1, 2009. However, under the pressure from the Railway Minister the service on transport of goods by rail was completely scraped by granting exemption to the said service vide Notification no 33/2009-ST dated September 1, 2009 the very day the levy of service tax on Rail was to come into effect. 

applicable for Nov 2010

however 

In the Budget 2010 announced on 26.02.2010, the Finance Minister have again issued another Notification No. 7/2010-ST, dated 27.02.2010. This notification has rescinded the Notification No. 33/2009-ST with effect from 01.04.2010. Thus, the service tax may once again be levied on transportation of goods by Rail from April 1, 2010.

hope this will be helpful to clearify the issue and others wont be confused as i was while giving answer...