News Update

Unveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesI-T- Secured creditor has priority charge over secured asset, over claims of I-T Department & other Departments; any excess amount recovered by Secured Creditor from auction of secured asset, over & above the dues payable to it, are to be remitted to the Departments: HCFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesI-T - Once assssee on year of reversal has paid taxes on excess provision and similar feature appeared in earlier years and assesee had payments for liquidated damages on delay of deliverables, no adverse inference can be drawn: HCFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerST - Software development service & IT-enabled service provided by assessee was exempt from tax during relevant period, by virtue of CBEC's Notification & Circular; demands raised for such period not sustainable: CESTATUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayCus - Order rejecting exporter's request for conversion of Shipping Bills on grounds that the same has been made by exporter beyond period of three months from date of Let Export Order in terms of CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus : CESTATIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEACus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTATThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCX - As per settled law, a right acquired as result of a statutory provision, cannot be taken away retrospectively unless said statutory provision so provides or by necessary implication has such effect: CESTAT
 
The Horror Begins - CBEC's New Year Bomb-If Stay Application is Pending, Pay up Confirmed Amounts

TIOL-DDT 2015
02.01.2013
Wednesday

WE never imagined our Tax horror-scope would be a reality in less than 24 hours. (Please see yesterday's DDT) CBEC has issued its first Central Excise Circular on arrears recovery during pendency of Stay applications. The circular has rescinded seven previous circulars on the subject matter. Suddenly, the Board has noticed a Supreme Court judgement delivered in 1993 in case of Krishna Sales (P) Ltd 2002-TIOL-428-SC-CUS wherein the Court observed that "As is well known, mere filing of an Appeal does not operate as a stay or suspension of the Order appealed against”. So, the Board has come to a conclusion that their predecessor Chairmen/Members did not know how to read Court Judgements and had issued some useless Circulars, which are now rescinded.Now, a fresh circular on how to deal with demands against which stay applications are pending before the Appellate forums, is issued.

According to the latest Circular, if a stay application is filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT and if there is no stay within 30 days, recovery action has to be initiated. In case of stay applications before High Courts and Supreme Court, even this 30 days time is not available. Recovery has to be initiated immediately after the orders if there is no stay.

Perhaps the Board is not aware that there was no Bench sitting in Bangalore and Chennai CESTAT for the last several months and even now, the Bench is functional only for half of the month. How can they expect the CESTAT to dispose of all the stay petitions within 30 days? There are many places where the Commissioner (Appeals) posts are lying vacant. How can they expect the assessees to get stay within 30 days? Perhaps the Board is under the impression that stay orders are just like a ready-to-eat dish which the assessee should go, pick up and come back. All that the assessees can do is only file a Stay Petition and wait for the hearing notice.

The Circular issued by the Board lacks foresight, proper understanding of the real situation and shows utter lack of respect for established procedure and the judicial system in the country. This Circular will no doubt create lot of work for the High Courts, as many Writ Petitions will be filed against this atrocious Circular. Perhaps the High Courts should award costs on the Board for issuing such mindless directions without understanding how not to apply the Supreme Court decision of 1993 to the present situation.

When the Board has shown extreme obedience to the Supreme Court order in case of Krishna Sales (P) Ltd , why do they have total disregard to this observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumar Cotton Mills case, which is more recent compared to the 1993 order? (2005-TIOL-42-SC-CESTAT). Is it because it just does not suit you? How can they have only selective respect for the Supreme Court judgements? Their Lordships in Kumar Cotton Mills observed that:

The sub-section which was introduced in terrorem cannot be construed as punishing the assessees for matters which may be completely beyond their control. For example, many of the Tribunals are not constituted and it is not possible for such Tribunals to dispose of matters. Occasionally by reason of other administrative exigencies for which the assessee cannot be held liable, the stay applications are not disposed within the time specified.

Certainly, this is not the way to treat the goose that lays golden eggs for the department. They don't fill the Commissioner (Appeals) post, they don't post Members in Tribunal and they want to punish the assessees for the fault of babus! Is it the job of the assessees to fill the vacancies in CESTAT, post the Commissioner (Appeals)?

The situation in case of appeals filed in High Court / Supreme Court is worse. The orders passed by the lower authorities will be implemented immediately if there is no stay in operation. Does the Board expect the High Courts and Supreme Court to dispose of the Stay applications immediately, as directed by the Hon'ble CBEC? Are they aware of the level of pendency in these courts?

Before causing damage to the industry and embarrassment to itself, the Board should immediately do proper introspection and withdraw this draconian Circular.

CBEC Circular No. 967/01/2013-CX, Dated: January 01 2013

Krishna Sales was against Revenue - First Hang; then Wait for Appellate Order

THE celebrated Krishna Sales case, which the Board relies on to justify the above draconian circular, was actually against the Revenue. In that case, the Customs Authorities refused to release the goods in spite of the importer winning in the Tribunal on the ground that the Department has appealed against the decision of the Tribunal. In such a circumstance, the Supreme Court observed, "If the authorities are of the opinion that the goods ought not to be released pending the Appeal, the straight-forward course for them is to obtain an Order of Stay or other appropriate direction from the Tribunal or the Supreme Court, as the case may be. Without obtaining such an Order, they cannot refuse to implement the Order under Appeal. As is well-known, mere filing of an Appeal does not operate as a Stay or suspension of the Order appealed against."

The Board wants to use these adverse comments against it to harass the assessees now.

Suppose somebody is given the sentence of hanging by a High Court and he appeals to the Supreme Court. Will the Government hang him before the Supreme Court can grant a stay?

Or if somebody who is in jail is acquitted by a High Court, will the Government continue to keep him in jail because the Government has gone in appeal?

You may say revenue cases cannot be compared to imprisonment and death sentence. No, they cannot be compared - this is even worse. If you kill a man (legally after a death sentence), you kill an individual and may be you inflict misery on his near ones, but if you kill an industry, you kill a society and you leave marks of your fiscal cruelty for years. That is exactly what is going to happen if the Board is serious about the Circular.

What is going to happen? For Show Cause Notices where the demand is less than Rs. 50 lakhs, Assistant/Deputy Commissioners, Jt/Addl Commissioners will routinely confirm the demands even if the law, Board Circulars and Supreme Court judgements are in favour of the assessee. The assessee files a stay petition before the Commissioner (Appeals) who will order pre-deposit of the entire duty. If you cannot pay this, he will dismiss the appeal. Before you can say CESTAT, the officers of the Department will swarm your place with attachment orders threatening to sell your properties. If you pay 50 lakhs, you are doomed. If you don't pay 50 lakhs, you are still doomed.

If the demand is for more than Rs.50 lakhs, it can be anything running into hundreds of crores, the Commissioners also confirm the demands, because they are afraid to drop demands running into Crores. The demands can be atrocious, illegal and outright perverse - but a Commissioner's order is to be obeyed. You can never get a stay from CESTAT within 30 days and the department wants its illegitimate money.

These are not hypothetical situations. Do you remember Customs issued notices to DTA suppliers of SEZ units demanding export duty for goods supplied to SEZs and Excise issued notices to the same assessees denying CENVAT credit on the same clearances? Even now, some notices are being issued. The procedure is simple. Audit raises an objection, department issues a notice, notice is confirmed, appellate authorities are not functioning and you are forced to pay up huge amounts.

You can certainly enforce your demands and protect revenue - if you can make your adjudicators write fair, reasonable or at least legally valid orders.

These measures don't seem to be to collect revenue - they are meant to harass the trade and maybe ultimately get them to close down business. You can't do more harm to Revenue than this.

There seems to be a strong message for future. You must manage your case appropriately at the very first stage of adjudication.

DDT's HORRORSCOPE was not for humour - the horror is here and now - Happy New Year!

PS: In a recent judgement delivered a few days ago, the AP High Court directed the Revenue not to initiate or pursue any coercive steps against the petitioner (or others who owe dues to the petitioner) under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 or any other appropriate provision, till disposal of the petitioner's applications for condonation of delay and for grant of interim relief in the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Tribunal on 26-9-2012. (2013-TIOL-09-HC-AP-ST)

Customs - Classification of Cordless Infrared Devices for Remote Control - Board Clarifies

BOARD is of the considered view that:

(a) When cordless infrared devices for the remote control are presented in a set put up for retail sale, that is, they are put up in a manner suitable for sale directly to users without repacking, along with principal / main device with which they are to be used, they shall be classified along with the principal / main device by application of GRI 3(b) and 6.

(b) In cases where cordless infrared devices for the remote control are presented separately, they shall be classified under heading 8543, sub-heading 8543.70, by application of GRI 1 and 6

Accordingly, Board wants all pending assessments, if any, to be finalized and suitable instructions to be given to the field formations.

CBEC Circular No.01/2013-Cus, Dated: January 01, 2013

Replacement of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) furnished in respect of provisional Mega or Ultra Mega Power Projects with Bank Guarantees (BGs) - CBEC Clarification

NOTIFICATION Nos. 12/2012-Customs (S.No.507) and 12/2012-Central Excise (S.No. 337 and 338), both dated 17-03-2012, granted exemption from customs and excise duties for provisional mega and ultra-mega power projects. One of the conditions specified for availing of the said exemption is that the importer/project developer furnishes a security in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) or Bank Guarantee from a Scheduled Bank for a term of 36 months or more for an amount equal to the duty payable but for this exemption. This condition was amended w.e.f 27-06-2012 when the importer/ project developer was given the option of furnishing either FDR or Bank Guarantee from a Scheduled Bank.

Now, the Board clarifies that since FDR and Bank Guarantee are considered equally effective securities, there should not be any difficulty in allowing the importer/ project developer to replace the FDR with the Bank Guarantee.

CBEC Circular No.02/2013-Cus, Dated: January 01, 2013

Customs - Installation of Close Circuit Television Systems (CCTV)

BOARD has decided that Commissioner of Customs, at the time of notification/Order under Section 8 of the Customs Act, 1962 for specifying Customs area for loading and unloading of imported or export goods and appointment of Custodian under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962, should ensure that video cameras and CCTVs Systems are installed in the Customs Area for security and to prohibit unauthorised access to the premises. The video footage should be available to Customs, which shall regularly monitor the same.

But will the Customs officers like their activities to be monitored by CCTVs?

This Circular is actually 3/2013, but Board has by mistake numbered it as 03/2012 - it happens during the New Year!

CBEC Circular No.03/2013-Cus, Dated: January 01, 2013

Insurance Premium - Service Tax on Reminders??

IT has been represented by life insurance companies that in terms of the practice followed, reminder notices/letters are being issued to the policyholders to pay renewal premiums. Such reminder notices only solicit furtherance of service which if accepted by policy holder by payment of premium results in a service. Clarification has been desired whether service tax needs to be paid on the basis of such reminders.

Board clarifies that reminder letters/notices for insurance policies not being invoices would not invite levy of service tax. In case of issuance of any invoice, point of taxation shall accordingly be determined.

Some bright officer must have asked the insurance companies to pay Service Tax based on these reminders!.

CBEC Circular No.166/1/2013 -ST, Dated: January 01, 2013

Service Tax - Foodstuff Includes Milk - Transportation by Rail Exempted

REPRESENTATION has been received from the Indian Railways seeking clarification as to whether service by way of transportation of milk by rail is covered by Notification No.25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, serial number 20(i). Board clarifies:

The expression 'foodstuff' appearing in Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, serial number 20(i) includes milk. Therefore, the service by way of transportation of milk by rail or a vessel from one place in India to another is covered by the Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.

CBEC Circular No.167/2/2013 -ST, Dated: January 01, 2013

Customs - Exemption for Import of Crude from Brunei Darussalam

GOVERNMENT has exempted Crude Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals falling under the tariff item 2709 00 00, when imported into India from Brunei Darussalam, from whole of the duty of customs.

Earlier the duty was 1% by Notification No. 116/2010-Cus dated 1.11.2010, which is superseded.

Notification No.63/2012-Cus, Dated: December 31, 2012

Imports from ASEAN Countries - Rates Reduced

NOTIFICATION No. 46/2011-Cus dated 1st June 2011 grants concessional rates of duty for imports from nine ASEAN Countries and a separate set of rates for imports from Philippines. This notification is amended and the rates are reduced.

Notification No.64/2012-Cus, Dated: December 31, 2012

Customs - Imports from Japan - Duty Reduced

GOVERNMENT has reduced the Customs duty on imports of engines of cylinder capacity exceeding 250cc(8408 2020) and Gearboxes and parts (870840). Sl. Nos 521 and 746 of Notification No. 69/2011-Cus dated 29.07.2011 are amended.

Notification No.65/2012-Cus, Dated: December 31, 2012

Customs - Imports from Korea - Duty Reduced

Government has reduced the Customs duty on imports from the Republic of Korea as notified under Notification No. 152/2009-Cus dated 31.12.2009

Notification No.66/2012-Cus, Dated: December 31, 2012

Customs - Imports from Malaysia - Duty Reduced

GOVERNMENT has reduced the Customs duty on imports from Malaysia as notified under Notification No. 53/2011-Cus dated 01.07.2011

Notification No.67/2012-Cus, Dated: December 31, 2012

Customs - Imports from Pakistan and Sri Lanka - Duty Reduced

GOVERNMENT has reduced the Customs duty on imports from Pakistan and Sri Lanka by issue of a new notification. Notification No. 125/2011-Cus dated 30.12.2011, is superseded.

Notification No.68/2012-Cus, Dated: December 31, 2012

Export of Goods and Services - Simplification and Revision of Softex Procedure at SEZs

AS per Regulation 6 of the Notification No. FEMA 23/2000-RB dated May 3, 2000 viz. Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2000, designated officials of the Ministry of Information Technology/ Ministry of Commerce and Industry(as the case may be), Government of India at the Software Technology Parks of India (STPIs) or at Free Trade Zones (FTZs) or Export Processing Zones (EPZs) or Special Economic Zones (SEZs), had been authorized to certify exports declared through SOFTEX Forms.

A revised Softex procedure was first introduced at the 5 designated centres of STPIs from April 1, 2012 and subsequently extended to all STPIs in India.

RBI has now decided to implement the revised Softex procedure at all SEZs/EPZs/100%EOU/DTA also with immediate effect.

As per the revised procedure, a software exporter either under STPIs or SEZs/EPZs/100%EOU/DTA, whose annual turnover is at least Rs.1000 crore or who files at least 600 SOFTEX forms annually on all India basis, will be eligible to submit statements in revised excel format sheets as per Annexures A & B.

AP (DIR Series) Circular No.66/RBI, Dated: January 01, 2013

Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

Legal Corner IconCentral Excise

Stay - Pre-deposit - Commissioner (Appeals) to show that he has at least prima facie considered the submissions of parties: HC

AT the time of disposing of the stay application, the Commissioner (Appeals) is not required to consider all the submissions made by the parties in depth. However, as he would be exercising a quasi-judicial function while directing the petitioner to deposit or not deposit any amount for the purposes of entertaining the petitioner's appeal on merit, the same is required to be exercised by showing that he has at least prima facie considered the submissions of the parties before him. Merely because the petitioner has not pleaded any financial hardship, it would not follow that the amount of duty and/or penalty adjudicated by the lower authority has to be pre-deposited for the purposes of hearing of the appeal on merits. A strong prima facie case may at times constitute sufficient reason for dispensing with pre-deposit of any amount for the purposes of entertaining the appeal on merits. An illustration of such a case would be where the dispute is covered in favour of the party by a decision of a higher forum.

Income Tax

Whether when assessees reimburse costs to a third party for manufacturing steel in pre-determined ratio, such payments are to be treated as FTS, liable to withholding tax - NO: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when the assessees reimburse the costs to a third party for manufacturing steel in a pre-determined ratio, such payments are to be treated as FTS, liable to withholding tax and Whether the costs reimbursements made by the assesses has an element of income. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.

Customs

Import of printed items relating to textile colour designing/matching - Merely because textile material occupies more space it cannot be stated that they are not books: CESTAT

OBVIOUSLY, a textile material cannot be printed on a paper and has to be pasted. Further, below every textile chip the colour name and code is printed. Merely because the textile material occupies more space, it cannot be stated that they are not books. For example, in a book containing many photographs, the photograph may occupy more space than the printed matter. That does not mean that it is a photo album and not a book.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements

The Babus were too active on the first day of the New Year and that explains this longish DDT.

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a Nice Day

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: DDT-2015 dated 02-01-2013 regarding CBEC Circular dated 02-01-2013

Attention is invited to a news-item published in the fortnightly journal “Service Tax Review” dated 1st September, 2012 under the heading “Indirect tax ombudsman languishes poor response from people”. It says that Ombudsman for Delhi and Bangalore have received only eight and two complaints respectively since April, 2012. Lucknow Ombudsman is yet to receive any complaint. The decision to create the posts of 7 Ombudsman was taken by the Central Government in March, 2011.The ombudsman is yet to be appointed for Mumbai, Chennai, Calcutta and Ahmedabad.
The message is clear that the country needs more Benches of CESTAT for disposal of pending cases and not the posts of Ombudsman.
In view of the above, it is pertinent to know from the netizens as to whether the Ombudsman for Delhi will hear the complaint of the taxpayer(s) against the Board in connection with this Circular as a measure of grievance redressal.

*These are my personal views in my personal capacity.
Pankaj Jaroli


Posted by Pankaj Jaroli
 

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023