News Update

IAS 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
 
Setting the Cat amongst the Pigeons

JULY 21, 2015

By B N Gururaj, Advocate

WITHIN the last couple of days, the Central Government has issued three amending notifications No. 34 to 36-CE, all dated 17.7.2015.

1. Notification No. 34/2015-CE amends Notification No. 30/2004-CE, dated 9.7.2004 which allowed full exemption to various textile products subject to the condition of non-availment of input credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR for short).

2. Notification No. 35/2015-CE amends Notification No. 1/2011-CE, 1.3.2011, which prescribes of 2% duty on all the Nil duty goods or wholly exempted goods. (I wonder, after payment of 2% duty, why should these goods be continued to referred to as Nil duty goods or Exempt goods).

3. Notification No. 36/2015-CE, amends conditions number 16, 20, 25 and 52A of the jumbo Notification No. 12/2012-CE, dated 17.3.2012.

The burden of song of all these amending notifications is this:

"Provided that the said excisable goods are manufactured from inputs on which appropriate duty of excise leviable under the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act or additional duty of customs under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) has been paid and no credit of such excise duty or additional duty of customs on inputs 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."

Prior to the present amendments, the conditions in the parent notifications merely stipulated that no cenvat credit is taken under the CCR on the inputs, input services or capital goods (or combination of one or more or all these, as the case may be). Hitherto, these conditions were required to be complied with the claimant of exemption. Compliance of these conditions did not pose any serious problem in practice, unless the assessee ineptly took impermissible credit and also claimed exemptions.

Now, the amendment specifies two factors:

A. The duties that ought to have been paid on the inputs, or capital goods, or service tax on the input services.

B. It brings in a third party, viz., "the Buyer" into the condition - First and Second parties being the claimant of exemption and the tax department.

That is, the notifications specify that duties and taxes ought to have been paid, but no credit thereof, taken by the manufacturer of such goods, and not the buyer of such goods.

Guided by the first rule of interpretation of statute, literal egis, or literal interpretation, one would understand that "such goods" address or connotes the immediately preceding reference, viz., inputs. That is, the manufacturer of inputs should not have taken cenvat credit of CE duty or the Additional Duty of Customs paid on his inputs, if the buyer of the inputs has to claim exemption on his final products.

Of course, there can be no question of the buyer of goods taking the credit of duty paid by the supplier on inputs. If the buyer of the inputs exclusively manufactures exempt goods, he cannot use such credits, even if he were to take. If he also manufactures dutiable goods, he would be hit by Rule 6(3) of the CCR. The bracketed phrase "not by the buyer of such goods" would become otiose, if any other meaning is sought to be given to it. Who is the buyer in this case? It is reasonable to construe as the "buyer of inputs", who is the claimant of the exemption. Because, the buyer of exempted goods cannot in any case, take credit, as no duty would have been paid on such exempted goods.

This may be illustrated thus:

"A, a manufacturer of woollen fabrics, places order on B, the woollen yarn supplier. Yarn supplier uses combed wool or animal hair as input, which is dutiable under CH 51.05 and dyes, which are also dutiable. Under the scheme of the present amendment under discussion, B cannot take credit of duty paid either on the combed wool, or on the dyes, if A has to claim exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE."

This leads to an absurd situation where a manufacturer must be blessed by his supplier, before he can claim a full exemption available to him. If the reference to "such goods" both within and outside the bracket is taken as reference to excisable goods in respect of which exemption is being claimed, then there was no need for this amendment, as the manufacturer of exempt excisable goods was already forbidden from claiming cenvat credit on the inputs. On the other hand, if the reference to "such goods" is taken as reference to the duty paid inputs, aforesaid consequence will follow: the supplier of inputs has to forego the input credit, if the customer has to claim this exemption.

I can think of one situation, where this exemption might work. When an EOU clearing the goods to DTA claims exemption from additional duty of customs by invoking Notification No. 30/2004-CE, then such exemption claim could be rejected on the ground that the input procured by the EOU did not suffer either the CE duty or the additional duty of customs. But, is it necessary to make this amendment just to rein in some EOUs, and adversely affect thousands of assessees in the DTA?

But, then the ways of the Government are mysterious. This is one more step towards "complification".

(DISCLAIMER : The views expressed are strictly of the author and Taxindiaonline.com doesn't necessarily subscribe to the same. Taxindiaonline.com 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)

 


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: setting the cat amongst the pegeons

with due respects to the author, he has added another dimension to the confusion already exist in the field with respect to the amendments. The interpretation of the author that the input supplier is barred from taking credit with the latest amendments, i am afraid is not correct or intended. The wordings ' such goods' refers to 'excisable goods' mentioned in the opening line of the proviso inserted and cannot be construed as referring to 'inputs' as viewed by the author, because for the supplier of these goods they become 'final products' and not 'inputs'. Further, what is an 'input' is defined in CCR

Posted by D B B Sharma
 
Sub: condition of not taking credit

Dear Sharma Sir,
The insertion of the phrase in brackets (And not buyer of such goods),has become a source of confusion and makes one understand that credit is not to be taken by the manufacturer of inputs as opined by the learned author.
If the buyer of the goods, is not one who is availing exemption say, under Notification No.1/2011-CE, but somebody else buying goods paying duty say at 2% adv, the condition of not taking credit would become redundant in view of the definition of "exempted goods " under Rule 2(d) of CCR,2004 as the same covers the goods on which duty is paid in terms of Notification No. 1/2011-CE. The confusion can be cleared by making suitable amendment in the condition like"by the manufcaturer of such goods availing exemption under Notification No. 1/2011-CE etc.

Posted by rrkothapally rrkothapally