There’s no bigger problem in ones study of the biblical writings than ones hermeneutics. Simply defined, hermeneutics is the science of scripture interpretation. What affects our hermeneutics, however, is our paradigm. In fact, if we all had the same paradigm, same IQ, and spent the same amount of time.

in our study of the writings, we would all draw the same conclusions. But, alas, God never made clones, people do that.

It was the Jewish paradigm that kept the majority of them from entering the Anointed’s kingdom. Jesus addressed it when he said, “No man puts new wine in old wine skins.” He knew that a new paradigm was necessary if they were going to be able to accept him.

Since we all obtained our paradigms from authority figures in our life such as parents, teachers, coaches and preachers, they rule our basic precepts and value systems. Let me quote Kuhn and Philip E Johnson.

“A paradigm is not merely a hypothesis, which can be discarded if it fails a single experimental test. It is a way of looking at the world, or some part of it, and scientists understand even the anomalies in its terms. According to Kuhn, anomalies by themselves never falsify a paradigm, because its defenders can resort to ad hoc hypotheses to accommodate any potentially disconfirming evidence. A paradigm rules until it is replaced by another paradigm… Kuhn described experimental evidence showing that ordinary people tend to see what they have been trained to see, and fail to see what they know ought not to be present. The finest scientists are no exception. On the contrary, because they are dependent upon inferences and upon observations that are difficult to make, they are particularly prone to paradigm-influenced misperception.”

Let me emphasize two major points of the above quote. 1) “…anomalies (things that don’t fit) by themselves never falsify a paradigm..”

When we hear things that do not fit what we’ve been taught as gospel, our tendency is to reject it out of hand. Our brain shuts down and refuses to consider the subject. The reason is simple. If we considered the subject we might be forced into changing our paradigm and that would be painful. No one likes change, especially to his way of thinking.

Jesus actually explained the problem the Jews had with new wine skins. Their attitude was simple, “. …the old is BETTER.” (Luke 5:36-39, emphasis mine)

That really explains the problem, doesn’t it? It’s not a question of whether the old is right, it’s just better. it’s comfortable. It’s traditional. It’s simple, It is the way things ought to be and remain. This explains why the Jews rejected Jesus outright. He simply didn’t conform to their paradigm — their idea of what the Messiah was supposed to be.

2) “…ordinary people tend to see what they have been trained to see, and fail to see what they know ought not to be present…”

I’m afraid Kuhn was being a little arrogant as he talks about “ordinary people” as if these exist in some unknown Eden, extraordinary people unaffected by paradigms. Such people do not exist in this reality. However, what he said is certainly true. People do tend to see what they’ve always been taught to believe and are generally blind to things that shouldn’t be included.

Simply put, paradigms can be real killers when it comes to truth seeking and our paradigm concerning biblical things is especially deadly. If this isn’t true, then why all the diverse religions in Christianity and the splintering even among the sects themselves? You can imagine how ridiculous all this division must appear in the eyes of unbelievers

And consider the extremes measures that paradigms have led to today and historically. The militant Islamic view that states that the United States is the great Satan and the world would be a better place if Americans were dead. So we see the destruction of the Twin Towers and attacks against Americans

everywhere. This paradigm is taught to their children and accepted. We consider them crazy and yet we are influenced just as deeply by our own paradigms.

One must remember, a person’s paradigm speaks nothing to whether the view is true or false, only that it is pervasive in our thinking. This pervasiveness is what makes it difficult in the extreme to examine closely another’s point of view. That’s why you here the old saw, “I will discuss anything but politics and religion.”

It was the influence of paradigm that inspired the Great Spanish Inquisition, resulting in the torturing and burning at the stake “heretics” across the European continent. In the examples already mentioned, militant Islam and “inquisitive” Christianity, the penalty was death to those that dared not share the pervasive paradigm.

Even in this land of religious tolerance you have the sordid example of a paradigm run amok in the Salem witch hunt in Massachusetts. We could multiply examples but you get the point.
In today’s evangelical religious atmosphere, heretics are “burned at the stake” by snubbing, excommunication, separation and any other means deemed appropriate by the majority view. After all, isn’t that what heresy is, going against the grain of the majority.

If we are going to be different and a truth seeker, we are going to have to examine our belief system carefully. We must ask ourselves where the fountain of our paradigm sprang. Did we arrive by independent and careful thought and study? Have we ever believed something to be true and later found out it wasn’t? We must be willing to step out of our paradigms without hanging our brains on the wall..

I will make a personal confession here. After having put in hundreds and hundreds of hours of bible study and years of authoritatively pontificating on many themes, I discovered I had been wrong about a great many things. I had accepted as true things that had guided and influenced my personal study and interpretation. I believed many untruths because they had “preached good” and were spoken by men I admired and wanted to emulate. I had laid a foundation upon the sand and I was truly appalled at the resultant collapse. Sigh.. Oh the strength and power of paradigms.

You may be a beginner in your search for biblical truth or you may have been around the sun a few more times like some, but it is never too late to consider your own paradigm. You can do better.

John
http://biblemaverick.com

Related items

• Why an Authoritarian Rule is Against Islam?
• The Pacifism of Islam
• The True Islamic Morals
• Prophecy
• How Did the Islam Born in Mecca Spread Across the World?

U.S. Courts do not apply Islamic Shari’a law because it violates the Establishment Clause set in the United States Constitution; they apply foreign law when necessary. American Courts do apply foreign law in certain cases involving international principle known as “conflict of Laws,” or “Private International Law.” This is referred to in U.S. courts as “the doctrine of comity“.

In the area of Private International Law, Comity is a courtesy, amity, and reciprocity by U.S. courts towards court decision issued in other nations.  Such a consideration by U.S. courts does not entail an obligation to agree with the rulings of foreign judgments. There is therefore a distinction between the doctrine of comity and law.

Public International Law can become part of the national law when the country has its signature on that law, Private international Law however, does not have the same level of recognition by U.S. Courts. The issue of comity is raised in Islamic divorce cases when a person who resides legally in the United States travels to a foreign country and obtain a certificate of divorce from a religious court.

The intent is to obtain an instant divorce by pronouncing triple talaq (divorcing his wife three times in a few minutes.) Such an action leaves the wife with nothing more than a nominal deferred mahr, and takes advantage of the child custody, which discriminates against the women and to label the wife as bad Muslim.

The man then returns to the United States and serves his wife with divorce papers demanding the implementation of the divorce according to the Islamic Shari’a, claiming that the “doctrine of comity” applies to his case.

Generally, a judgment of divorce for example issued in a foreign country is recognized in the U.S. on the basis of comity, provided both parties to the divorce received adequate notice, i.e. service of process and, generally, provided one of the parties has a domicile in the foreign nation at the time of divorce, and the foreign court has given opportunity to both parties to present their case, and the trial was conducted upon regular proceedings after due citation or voluntary appearance of the litigants, and under a system of jurisprudence likely to secure an impartial administration of justice between the citizens of its own country, and those of other countries, an no prejudice towards either party and should not violate a strong U.S. principle of law, and the parties were present in court. The court may deny the application of comity if the judges deem the foreign laws is “repugnant” to U.S. principle of law.

An Islamic triple talaq differs substantially with respect to property division. Under Islamic Shari’a, wives may be entitled to a deferred mahr, which is, in most cases, much less than what U.S. courts order; above all, U.S. courts will not accept an Islamic divorce certificate obtained in a foreign country if the cause of action on which the divorce is based is “repugnant” to the public policy of the State in which the case is litigated.

Gabriel Sawma is Professor of Middle East Constitutional Law, Islamic Shari’a, Arabic and Aramaic. Expert on Islamic marriage contracts, Islamic divorce, child custody, inheritance, Islamic banking and finance. Editor of an International Law website: http://www.gabrielsawma.blogspot.com . Author of “The Qur’an: Misinterpreted, Mistranslated and Misread. The Aramaic Language of the Qur’an.” http://www.syriacaramaicquran.com. Author of an upcoming book on Islamic Divorce in US Courts. Email: gabrielsawma@yahoo.com

Republication of this article is permitted.

Related items

• Islamic banking and global financial market: signs of sustainable growth
• The True Islamic Morals
• Reasons & Steps to be taken for improving the life quality of Islamic women. Part 1
• Reasons & Steps to be taken for improving the life quality of Islamic women. Part 1
• Reasons & Steps to be taken for improving the life quality of Islamic women. Part 1

Job work is a wide phenomenon in production of goods and services. It is encouraged as it helps in cost control, specialization and extension of industrialization.

A job worker is engaged in processing material, supplied by principal manufacturers on job work basis. Such job work is covered under Business auxiliary service attracting service tax, when the process does not amount to manufacture. However, Notification 8/2005-S.T. dated 01.03.2005 exempt such job work on the condition that the processed material is returned to the principal manufacturer for further manufacture, on which finally duty is payable.

Sometimes job work may amount to manufacture. In such situation, Central Excise duty is payable. However, such payment of duty is exempted under Notification 214/86 or under Cenvat Credit Rules, if the processed material is returned to the principal manufacture, on which finally duty will be paid by the principal manufacturer.

While doing the job work, a job worker uses some of his inputs/input services. The purpose of this paper to examine as to whether the job worker is eligible for cenvat credit on inputs and input services used in providing such exempted job work. The other question arises as to how he can utilize this credit or how can he pass on credit to the principal manufacturer.

Job work is a widely followed practice. In this practice a principal manufacturer sends raw materials to job worker for various processing. In this processing, the job worker uses some consumables, minor materials, capital goods and input services.

This process involved in job work may amounts to manufacture, in which case Central Excise duty is payable, or may not amount to manufacture, in which case service tax is payable under the head business auxiliary service.

When processed goods after job work is returned to the principal manufacturer, which is further used by the principal manufacturer in further production on which ultimately Central Excise duty is paid; such job work is exempted from payment of Central Excise duty vide Notification 214/86 or under Cenvat Credit Rules & Service Tax is exempted under Notification 8/2005.

The first issue which is to be decided as to whether the person providing this exempted job work can Cenvat Credit or Not?

The job-worker is carrying job-work in terms of Central Excise & Service Tax law and procedures. Central Excise or service tax law and procedure does not prohibit a job worker from utilizing other inputs or input services in addition to raw material received by him from the principal manufacturer. There is no bar under in Central Excise from using own material in addition to material supplied by the principle manufacturer as this view is also held in Shakti Insulated Wires Ltd  Vs. CCE [1999 (114) ELT 424] further, it is submitted that a jobworker, after using his own inputs used in the job-work of the goods/raw materials can clear the said goods/raw materials to the principle manufacturer without payment of duty after availing the Cenvat credit on the inputs used by him, provided, the duty ultimately gets paid by the principle manufacturer.

In other words, a job-worker can avail Cenvat credit on the inputs/input services used by him in undertaking job-work and after availing Cenvat credit on such inputs/input services can clear the goods to the principle manufacturer without payment of duty only when, the duty is finally paid by the principle manufacturer. In this case, the duty does not get paid at the job-worker’s end at the time of clearence of the goods, but ultimately gets paid at the manufacturer’s end.

In the instant case the final product after the job-work is liable to excise duty and not exempted from duty.

Similar issue arose before Tribunal in case of Jindal Polymers Vs. CCE, Meerut-III [2001 (135) ELT 657] where it was held that the job-worker is entitled to cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture or processing of polymer/polyester chips on job-work, cleared without payment of duty to the parent manufacturer for manufacture of polyester/polymer filament yarn under notification no. 214/86 as polyester/polymer filament yarn being chargeable to excise duty.

The issue was examined by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune [2005 (183) ELT 353] the larger bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal held that,

“In only case of Escorts Ltd. v. CC Ex, Delhi [2003 (160) E.L.T. 623 (Tri-Del.)] while interpreting Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules, the Tribunal rejected the appellants claim of Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of the parts, which were cleared without payment of duty to, appellant’s other unit under Chapter X procedure and utilised in the manufacture of tractor which were cleared on payment of duty by observing that since no duty was paid on the part at the time of clearance, Rule 57C will apply and no Modvat credit would be admissible. However, the said decision was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court as reported in Escort v. C.C.Ex. [2004 (171) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.)]. For appreciation, we reproduce paragraphs 8 & 9 of the said decision.

It is to be seen that the whole purpose of the Notification and the Rules is to streamlines the process of payment of duty and to prevent the cascading effect if duty is levied both on the inputs and the finished goods. Rule 57D(2), which has been extracted hereinabove, shows that in the manufacture of a final product an intermediate product may also come into existence. Thus in cases where intermediate product may also come into existence. Thus in cases where intermediate product comes into existence, even though no duty has been chargeable to Nil rate of duty, credit would still be allowed so long as duty is paid on the final product. In cases of manufacturers like the Appellants the final product is the tractor. The intermediate product would be parts which are manufactured for being used in the tractor. In such a case the parts would not be the final product. Thus Rule 57C would have no application. The mere fact that the parts are cleared from one factory of the Appellants to another factory of the Appellants would not disentitle the Appellant from claiming benefit of Notification No. 217/86-C.E., dated 2nd April, 1986. As stated above, the Notification itself clarifies that the inputs can be used within the factory of production or in any other factory of the same manufacturer.”

By applying the ratio of the above decision, it becomes clear that Modvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product cleared without payment of duty for further utilisation in the manufacture of final product, which are cleared on payment of duty by the principal manufacturer, would not be hit by provision of Rule 57C. Inasmuch as, the matter stands decided by the Honourable Supreme Court.

Similar view has also been taken in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune [1994 (69) ELT 122], J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur, [1996 (87) ELT 389.

In Shkti Insulated wires Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Custom Mumbai-V [2002 (149) ELT 668] the Hon’ble tribunal held that,

“2.The appellant? is engaged in the manufacture of paper covered copper strips falling under chapter sub-heading 8544 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. They manufactured the said products on a job work basis and also on their own account. The appellant sometimes received the inputs i.e. copper wires and/or rods from their principal manufacturer which, after processing by the appellant, are returned to their principal manufacturer under the provisions of Rule 57F(3) of the Central Excise Rules. When they clear such types of materials after processing, they do not pay duty as the duty on the final products are paid by the principal manufacturer. As far as the goods i.e. paper covered copper strips manufactured and finally cleared by the appellant on their own account, they pay duty on clearance. Show cause notice was issued charging the appellant that Modvat credit obtained by the appellant was inadmissible on the ground that they have availed inadmissible Modvat credit on insulated craft paper used in the processing of copper wire/rods received under the provisions of Rule 57F(3) which were further processed and cleared as paper covered copper strips without payment of duty under the provisions of Rule 57F(3) as it comes under the provisions of Rule 57C of the Rules. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand. On appeal, the appellate authority confirmed the order-in-original. Hence the present appeals.

3.The learned? advocate for the appellant invited my attention to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Jindal Polymers v. CCE – 2001 (135) E.L.T. 657 (T) = 2001 (43) RLT 680 where under similar circumstances the two member bench, after referring to the earlier judgment of the Tribunal, has upheld the claim of the job worker. Learned DR reiterates the impugned orders. I have considered the rival submissions and I am of the view that the said judgment is squarely applicable to the present case. I therefore allow the Appeal E/3264/2000, setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief.

4.As far as the? other Appeal E/3265/2000 is concerned, the inputs which the appellant manufactured have been captively consumed for the manufacture of final products which have been cleared by the appellant themselves and the said final product has also been cleared on job work basis. The circumstances, in my view, is also covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in Jindal Polymers case (supra). Hence this appeal also stands allowed, ordering consequential relief, after setting aside the impugned order.

It is to be noted that the case has been affirmed by the Supreme Court as reported in [2003 (151) ELT A89]. The case has also been affirmed by larger bench of the Tribunal Judgment in case of Sretlite Ltd quoted supra.

In Bharat Friz Werner Ltd v. CCE [2005 (191) ELT 1009], Hon’ble Tribunal held that,

“We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The appellants received certain dutiable inputs and manufactured machines. They utilised these machines for job work. After job work, the goods were sent under 57F(4) Challan to the principal manufacturers. The department is of the view that the machines manufactured by the appellant are exclusively used in the manufacture of the exempted goods. Therefore, the inputs are not entitled for Cenvat credit. In other words, the department is equating goods sent under 57F(4) challan with exempted goods. This is not correct. The goods, which are sent to principal manufacturer, are not exempted goods. Ultimately, they would be cleared on payment of duty. Hence, the reasoning adopted by the department is not correct. Moreover, all the case laws cited by the appellant are very relevant in deciding this issue. In the case of KSH International, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue appeal and held that clearance of goods on job work does not amount to clearance under full exemption or at Nil rate of duty. The ratio of this decision is squarely applicable to the present case. Under these circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.”

Recently the proposition has been followed in following case:

CCE Banglore v. South India Wire Products [2008 (228) ELT 290] R M Polypack v. CCE, Allahabad [2008 (226) ELT 591] CCE Mumbai v. National Standard [2008 (226) ELT 431] Shri Uma Foundaries v. CCE Kolkata [2008 (222) ELT 317]

In view of these binding judgment and settled position of law, following legal principles emerges:

Goods cleared under job work exemption are not exempted goods, as ultimately duty is paid by the principal manufacturer. The job worker is permitted to use his own capital goods/inputs/input services in the job work. When the job worker uses his own capital goods/inputs/input services in job work, he is entitled to take credit of duty on those capital goods/inputs/input services.

In view of this I am of the opinion that the a job worker, in abovesaid cisrcumstances is eligible to take Cenvat Credit on inputs and input services used in doing job work, on which ultimately duty burden will be discharged by the principal manufacturer.

As it is obvious that a job worker can take credit, the next question arises as to how the credit is to be utilized. In one situation the job worker may also be manufacturing on his own behalf, and he can utilize the credit for payment of duty on his own manufactured goods. If this is not possible, he may not avail the Service Tax exemption notification, and may opt to pay service tax on job charges, thereby passing on Cenvat Credit.

NOTIFICATION 8/2005-ST DATED 01.02.2005- CAN IT BE IMPOSED ON SERVICE PROVIDER:

It is a settled principle that an conditional exemption notification cannot be imposed on an assessee. The view has been upheld by Tribunal in case of Remedies Pharma v. CCE [1998 (101) ELT 344], CCE v. VIP Industry [1998 (103) ELT 95], Steelco Gujrat v. CCE [2000 (122) ELT 381] and numerous other cases.

The Notification 8/2005 is a conditional notification, conditions being,

“Provided that the said exemption shall apply only in cases where such goods are produced using raw materials or semi-finished goods supplied by the client and goods so produced are returned back to the said client for use in or in relation to manufacture of any other goods falling under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), as amended by the Central Excise Tariff (Amendment) Act, 2004 (5 of 2005), on which appropriate duty of excise is payable.”

As the exemption is conditional, it is the option of the assessee either to avail the exemption or not. In view of this, I am of the opinion that an assessee may refuse to avail the benefit of this notification and opt to pay service tax on output service of job work.

In view of these, the job worker is entitled to take cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services while providing job work. Such credit is available, irrespective of the fact that whether he avails the benefit of exemption notification 8/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 or not.

The other option available to the assessee is not to avail service tax exemption 8/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 and avail cenvat credit in inputs, capital goods and input services. In this case the job worker shall be paying service tax on job work done.

Rajesh Kumar, Advocate

Related items

• How to Work With a Sales Recruiter to Get a Better Job
• How to Work With a Headhunter
• Alternative Energy Group Advocates Use of Wind Power
• Five Tips for Creating Self-marketing Capsules to Accelerate your Job Search Campaign
• EXT Insurance Advocates for Cancer Patients

When you go to a Social Security Disability hearing and you decided to do it alone without a disability advocate or attorney the chances of winning your case may drop or this may severely hurt the chances of being awarded benefits you really need.

Here is a very strong argument that you may not have heard before when it comes to getting adequate representation from disability advocates, and it happens to be based on experience from advocates that have been in the business for well over a decade.

A disability advocate was contacted by a claimant that was denied during their SSDI hearing. Advocates obtain a copy of the recording of the hearing process, as all SSDI hearings are recorded for just this reason. When the advocate listened to the audio tape, he noticed a few things that stood out immediately as proof that having an advocate on your side can really make a difference.

The hearing in question lasted less than a total of ten minutes, despite the fact that the average hearing typically goes for at least thirty minutes. When a hearing doesn’t even take twenty minutes, red flags are thrown up.

During the hearing in question, the judge never made an effort to advise the claimant that she had a right to fair representation.

Finally, the judge didn’t take the time to ask the claimant about any recent medical treatment since her initial application, nor did he try to gather any updated medical information so that her record could be updated, meaning that the SSA did not have her most recent information on file, and was lacking evidence that could have helped her in this process.

If this claimant had an attorney or another representative with her, this would not have been allowed to happen. She would have had someone on her side who could have informed her of her options, and made sure that the judge had all of the pertinent information, old and new.

From here, then, you have a choice between two options. There are advocates that will work to represent the claimants, or you have the choice to choose an attorney to hire, for this you can choose a lawyer that mainly handles these claims or one who is not a specialist in this line of law.

Neither of these options can provide you with a guarantee that they will be successful in securing the benefits that you are making the application for. This legal representation will guarantee that you will be ready for your hearing and properly prepared. This is one of the best things you can do when applying for Social Security benefits, as these professionals will know what to look for when it comes to making your best case.

There is no reason not to come equipped with an advocate on your side when applying for SSDI or appealing a decision regarding your SSDI and SSI benefits. Having SSDI experts on your side provides you with relief that someone is in your corner who knows what they are doing when filing for disability insurance or appealing a decision.

Related items

• Social Security Disability Appeal
• What Is Social Security Disability ? How Do I Apply?
• Social Security Disability or SSDI Benefits
• Choosing a Social Security Disability Attorney–5 Tips
• How To Select a Disability Lawyer