News Update

Attack on Delhi Chief Secretary turning into street fights & legal battlesDAE Health Scheme notified for Sec 80D benefitsIssuance of Certificate of origin retroactively - period enhanced to twelve months from the date of shipment - Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between the Republic of India and Japan) Rules, 2011 amendedSummons in GST (See 'JEST GST on GST Home Page')I-T - When Revenue had accepted assessee as investor in previous year, it cannot change his status to trader merely because he made some profit on shares: ITATEmployee Benefits - An OverviewST - Transport of goods by air Tax payable during period 10.09.2004 to 16.09.2004 and 16.6.2005 to 14.07.2005 as there was no exemption from payment of such tax during said period: CESTATComposition scheme eligibility, process and benefitsCX - There is no provision under CCR, 2004 for denial of credit on ground that assessee has admittedly deployed inputs in excess of ideal for achieving desired output level: CESTATIAS Association condemns attack on Delhi Chief Secretary; demands immediate actionICAI removes name of O P Tulsyan from register of Members for five years in compliance with Allahabad HC orderST - Supreme Court agrees with Larger Bench CESTAT decision in Bhayana Builders - Revenue appeals dismissedCabinet clears bills on illicit deposit & chit funds regulations (See 'TIOLCorplaws')Cabinet nod for Tribunal on river disputeCabinet nod for bus bay near Indian Defence UniversityCabinet nod for coal mining methodologyCabinet okays Indo-Moroccan railway pactFive IRS officers appointed as CESTAT Members - Sanjiv Srivastava (Mumbai) + P Anjani Kr (Mumbai) + P Venkata Subba Rao (Hyderabad) + Bijay Kr (Delhi) + C L Mahar (Delhi)CBDT issues transfer order of four CITsI-T - Incriminating evidences obtained prior to date of search, cannot be roped in to make additions in case of unabated assessments: ITATPNB scam should pave road for financial transparencyBurdensome registration requirement under GST law be done away withST World Bank and International Finance Corporation are part of United Nations, therefore, there is no need to resort to definition of International Organization for extending benefit of notification 16/2002-ST: CESTATAnti Profiteering Application - An analysisCX - Merely on basis of statement given by one employee to police that raw materials worth Rs.2 crore were destroyed in fire, same cannot be taken as gospel truth: CESTATGovt keen to make agri schemes 'income-centric' rather than 'production-centric': MinisterKolkata DRI seizes 12.4 kg elephant tusk being smuggled from Assam to NepalDigital India successing becoz of people's pull: PMFish eats plastic & humans eat fish - serious health hazard: MinisterI-T - When assessee was only a licensee, not having exclusive rights over a property, vide unregistered document, it cannot claim to be owner of property for purpose of Sec 22: HCRailways relaxes upper age limit for Group C postsNo GST is leviable on goods sold/transferred while remaining in Customs bonded warehouseLeviability of IGST and as well as Compensation cess under Customs ActAG expresses concern over CBEC cases being dismissed by SC on ground of delayTime to shift focus from acronyms to gaps in performanceGST - Industry reports cumbersome procedures & high cost of compliance
Carelessness in drafting notifications

JULY 21, 2015

By M K Gupta, IRS (Retd.)

THE Central Government has recently issued three Central Excise notifications 34-36/2015 all dated 17 th July, 2015 amending various existing notifications. These notifications amend conditions for availing benefit of exemption from duty. The amended conditions are as below:

"Provided that the said excisable goods are manufactured from inputs or by utilising input services on which appropriate duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) or additional duty of customs under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) or service tax under section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) has been paid and no credit of such excise duty or additional duty of customs on inputs or service tax on input services has been taken by the manufacturer of such goods (and not the buyer of such goods), under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.".

2. As can be seen from the above, one of the conditions is that the excisable goods are manufactured from inputs on which appropriate duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. The question is there any authority under the said Act to levy duty of excise?

3. Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax shall be levied without the authority of law. Law means an Act passed by the Parliament which authorizes levy and collection of tax. There is no such provision under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Section 2 of the said Act states that the rates at which duties of excise shall be levied under the Central Excise Act, 1944 are specified in the First Schedule. In other words duty is leviable under Central Excise Act, 1944 at the rates specified in the said Schedule. Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides for levy of duty at the rates specified in the Schedules of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

4. From the above analysis of legal provisions, it is crystal clear that the duty of excise is leviable under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and not under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Hence condition prescribed in the aforesaid notifications, is not legally sustainable.

5 Further the amending notifications mention "service tax under section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994)" This section is not applicable since 1.7.2012. The service tax is levied under Section 66 B.

6. It is settled law that to avail exemption under a notification, the conditions must be strictly satisfied. How can a taxpayer satisfy the conditions which are beyond the four corners of law?

(DISCLAIMER : The views expressed are strictly of the author and doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Pvt. Ltd. is not responsible or liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any interpretation, error, omission in the articles being hosted on the sites)


Sub: Transparency in drafting rules

Very often in India it is viewed that the more complex,circuitous and unintelligible a law the more perfect it is. In the name of abstractness they are creating chaos in the field of taxation. Why these people can't state it in lucid terms and say by a circular look this is the law we intend to bring and we want to remove the mischief existing in the present practice. When these so called legal pundits people will understand what is meant by transparency and clarity.

Posted by harinarayanan thekkekalathil