TIOL-DDT 2578
16 04 2015
Thursday

DDT had reported about the CBDT's Name and Shame programme of publishing the list of defaulters in DDT 2567 - 27 03 2015. The first list contained 18 names. Now the Board has come out with a second list containing 31 names. Of these 23 assessees are not traceable according to the List. And 5 have no assets. The Income Tax Department has advised the defaulters to pay the tax arrears immediately.

Who are they going to shame by publishing the names of defaulters who have no assets or who have not left a trace behind while giving the slip?

Why can't they collect arrears from people who have assets and who are traceable?

The List.

Income Tax - Exemption Limit for Transport Allowance Increased to Rs. 1600

THE Fifth Pay Commission allowed a 'transport allowance' to the Central Government employees. The maximum amount of allowance was Rs. 800 per month. This was in 1997. Consequently the Income Tax Department by Sl. No. 10 in the Table to Rule 2BB(2) allowed a maximum of Rs. 800 as transport allowance granted to an employee as exemption from income tax. That is, all the central government employees enjoyed full exemption of the transport allowance given to them.

The Sixth Pay Commission enhanced the maximum limit of transport allowance to Rs. 3200 with D.A in 2006. That means as of now, the maximum transport allowance is Rs.6816. Even the minimum transport allowance for the lowest cadre employee in a city is Rs. 852.

But the income tax exemption limit of Rs. 800 fixed in 1997 was not increased for the last 18 years.

Now the CBDT has amended this table in the Rule 2BB(2) to enhance the exemption limit to Rs. 1600. This would mean a saving of Rs. 80 to Rs. 240 per month for each employee.

The exemption limit for a blind or orthopaedically handicapped employee was Rs.1600, now raised to Rs.3200.

CBDT Notification No. 39/2015, Dated: April 13, 2015

Jurisprudentiol- Recent SC Judgements

Customs - Import of Hot Mix Plant Exempted; the exemption cannot be made applicable to part of the plant - Statement made before Customs authorities admissible evidence - Cost imposed on appellant. Yesterday the Supreme Court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh in a Customs appeal filed in 2004. The question in the appeal was whether the importer imported a plant for which there was an exemption or parts of a plant for which there was no exemption. CESTAT had held that what had been imported was not a complete plant and, therefore, it would follow that the exemption notification would not be available on this score. CESTAT had reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1 lakh from Rs. 5 lakhs and set aside the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh.

Supreme Court noted that senior officers of the Company had in Statements given before the Customs authorities confirmed that they imported only parts. And these statements were admissible as evidence.

The Supreme Court noted the considerable relief given by the CESTAT and dismissed the appeal with a cost of Rs. 1 lakh.

Please see IVRCL Infrastructure And Projects Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2015-TIOL-73-SC-CUS

Central Excise - North East Exemption - Expansion before the relevant date - not eligible for exemption: - As per Notifications 32 and 33/99-CE dated 8.7.1999, exemption was to apply to:

1. New industrial units which have commenced their commercial production on or after the 24th day of December, 1997.

2. Industrial units existing before the 24th day of December, 1997 but which have undertaken substantial expansion by way of increase in installed capacity by not less than twenty five per cent on or after the 24th day of December, 1997

The appellant was an existing unit and extended its capacity by more than 50%. Machinery etc. for this purpose was installed on 30.9.1997. However, the production started on 16.2.1998. In order to get the benefit, the substantial expansion had to be undertaken on or after 24.12.1997.

The Department denied the benefit on the ground that the installation took place before the cut off date that is 30.9.1997.

And the Supreme Court concurred.

Please see Assam Petrochemicals Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong - 2015-TIOL-69-SC-CX

Customs - exemption from CVD on the condition that Cenvat Credit not taken - CESTAT denied the exemption on the ground that Cenvat credit was not admissible - when the credit under the CENVAT Rules is not admissible to the appellant, question of fulfilling the aforesaid condition does not arise. Held: Appellant entitled to exemption - One of the conditions of an exemption notification was that no Cenvat credit is taken on the inputs or Capital Goods. The CESTAT denied the exemption to the assessee on the ground that no Cenvat credit was admissible and when no credit was admissible, the question of fulfilling the condition did not arise.

Supreme Court did not agree and allowed the assessee's appeal.

Please see SRF Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs - 2015-TIOL-74-SC-CUS

Central Excise - manufacture - whether coating on uncoated paper would amount to manufacture: -This was the question in a Revenue Appeal filed in 2004. The CESTAT had observed:

"we are of the view that the appellants are justified in contending that the process of coating of the uncoated paper would not amount to a manufacturing process. No different commodity emerges after the coating having distinct features, name use and character. The coated paper continuous to be paper for printing and writing. The ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in CCE vs. Shree Vindhya Paper Mills is directly applicable in the present case. The view taken by the Commissioner in the impugned order that the assessee is manufacturing two products, namely uncoated paper and coated paper cannot be accepted. Uncoated paper emerges at one stage of the manufacturing process of coated paper. A reading of the exemption notification would clearly show that it grants an exemption from payment of duty on paper and paper board articles made therefrom upto clearance of 3500 Mts. When the same is manufactured from the stage of pulp and using non-conventional raw material. The objective is apparently to promote use of non-conventional raw material in making paper, paperboard and articles of paper and paperboard. If the interpretation sought to be given by the Revenue is accepted, it will defeat the very objective. Under these circumstances, we find no reason to uphold the view taken by the Commissioner affirming the demand under the show cause notice. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal."

The Supreme Court found no error in the Tribunal order and dismissed the Revenue Appeal.

Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs - Pitamber Coated Paper Ltd - 2015-TIOL-71-SC-CX

Central Excise - If the Tribunal had not scrutinized the documents, the only option for the High Court was to remit the case back to the authorities below for fresh consideration: - In a writ petition, the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal. The matter is in the Supreme Court. The Apex Court remarked, "The High Court, no doubt, has remarked that the CEGAT did not look into the various documents which were produced by the respondent and did not record the statement of the consignors and consignees who had given the affidavit, etc. To this extent, the High Court may be justified. However, if the matter was not dealt with by the CEGAT affirmatively, without scrutiny of the relevant documents, the only option for the High Court was to remit the case back to the authorities below for fresh consideration in the light of documents filed by the respondent. On the contrary, the High Court proceeded to decide the issue on the premise that documents filed by the respondent are authentic and treating the case put forth by the respondent as gospel truth. That cannot be countenanced."

The Revenue appeal was allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner.

Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II Vs Quality Exports And Chemicals - 2015-TIOL-72-SC-CX

Tariff Value of Gold slightly increased, Silver Decreased

THE Government has increased the Tariff value of Gold from 385 USD to 388 USD per 10 gms. The tariff value of Silver is reduced from 543 USD to 524 USD per kilogram.

Tariff values of all the oils, Brass Scrap and Poppy Seeds and even Areca Nuts have been changed.

The Tariff values as on 31.03.2015 and with effect from 15.04.2015 are as under:

Notification No. 37/2015-Cus.(N.T.), Dated: April 15 2015

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a nice day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in