TIOL-DDT 2867
14 06 2016
Tuesday

CUSTOMS - Exemption to Spectacle lenses - No change due to change in Tariff to 8 digits: Spectacle lenses were attracting nil duty in the Central Excise Tariff till 2004. The Tariff Rate was fixed at 8% in 2004, but still exemption was given by a notification.8-digit tariff was introduced with effect from 28.02.2015, but this was not supposed to change any existing rates or exemptions. The department sought to collect tax on spectacle lenses which were earlier imported at nil rate. The Supreme Court held, "The adjudicating authority as well as the CESTAT have been influenced by the fact that the goods in question were re-classified as "semi-finished spectacle lenses" and on that basis it is held that since these were semi-finished spectacle lenses and not finished one, the benefit of exemption notification which is available only in the case of spectacle lenses, i.e., that is finished spectacle lenses, would not be available to the appellant herein. This approach of the authorities below was clearly erroneous. It is the power lenses which were imported by the appellant herein. They were treated as semi-finished only because of the reason that while fitting these lenses for a particular customer, i.e., before customizing according to the prescription, they were to be finished lenses. For the aforesaid reason, the goods could not be treated as "semi-finished" and it could be appropriately described as "to be finished spectacle lenses".

Please see Breaking News for more details.

COFEPOSA - Detention - No Detention order against a person who is already in jail and has not applied for bail: Under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, a person can be detained to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation or augmentation of foreign exchange or with a view to preventing him from-

(i) smuggling goods, or

(ii) abetting the smuggling of goods, or

(iii) engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or

(iv) dealing in, smuggled goods otherwise than by engaging in transporting or concealing or keeping smuggled goods, or

(v) harbouring persons engaged in smuggling goods or in abetting the smuggling of goods.

Thus, this is basically a preventive detention. The Government should be satisfied that the person is likely to engage in these activities. Now, can a detention order be passed against a person who is already in jail?

The Supreme Court held that only in those cases where there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody, action can be taken for detention of such a person by passing orders of preventive detention under   COFEPOSA   Act. Otherwise, there is no occasion and justification to pass such an order.

Please see PP Rukhiya Vs Joint Secy. Government - 2016-TIOL-85-SC-COFEPOSA

Customs - Valuation - CESTAT passed the order on the ground that the issue was not raised before Commissioner, when in fact it was indeed raised. Matter remanded to CESTAT to consider the matter afresh: In 2008, the CESTAT passed an order dismissing the appeal of an assessee observing that an important point raised by the assessee was not raised before the Commissioner. Supreme Court finds that the issue had indeed been raised before the Commissioner. The matter is remanded to CESTAT.

Please see S12 Micro Systems Ltd Vs Commissioner - 2016-TIOL-86-SC-CUS

Central Excise - Valuation - Cost of packing - The finding to the effect that the packing material which was used was durable and returnable by the buyer has come on record. On the basis of this finding the decision has been arrived at, which is the correct view in law. No merit in Revenue Appeal: Revenue is in appeal before the Supreme Court against the concurrent orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT. Supreme Court found no merit in the the appeal.

Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I Vs SRF Ltd - 2016-TIOL-84-SC-CX

Central Excise - Classification - Part of boiler: The assessee had dispatched steel fabricated, structures for mounting the boilers and their accessories and treated these fabricated structures as a part of boiler and   classified   them under chapter heading 8402.90 attracting 13%   E.D. Department wanted classification as steel structures falling under chapter 7308 attracting 15%   E.D. The Supreme Court observed, "The Department itself has come out with the clarification that those structural components which are to be used as parts of Boiler System would be classifiable as parts of Boiler only under Heading 8402 of the Tariff. This clarification, thus, vindicates the stand which was taken by the assessee throughout by rightly classifying the parts of the boilers under Chapter sub heading 8402.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985."

Please see Swetha Engineering Ltd Vs Commissioner - 2016-TIOL-83-SC-CX

Anti Dumping Duty on Pentaerythritol - saved Just In Time

THE Anti Dumping Duty on "Pentaerythritol", falling undersub-heading 2905 42 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, originating in, or exported from, the People's Republic of China, imposed by notification No.47/2011-Customs, dated the 14th June,2011, would have expired yesterday.

The Government acted Just In Time and extended this anti dumping duty till the 13th day of June, 2017.

The Board deserves all praise for meeting the deadline, especially as the Designated Authority recommended extension of the anti dumping duty for a further period of one year, only on 7th June 2016. Within six days, they could issue the notification.

Notification No. 26/2016-Customs (ADD)., Dated June 13 2016

Withdrawal of Appeals Pending in CESTAT/High Courts - CBEC Instructions

BOARD had instructed that all the identified appeals below monetary limit pending before High Courts/CESTAT are to be withdrawn within three months i.e. by July, 2016.

The Board has since decided that in all cases identified, applications for withdrawal should invariably be filed by 15.06.16 (that is tomorrow) and all of them withdrawn by 15.07.16.

The CBEC Member Ms. Ananya Ray wants the Chief Commissioners to note that individual zones performance would be reviewed thereafter and zones found not compliant will be held accountable.

CBEC Member D.O.F.No..390/Misc./163/2010-JC., Dated: June 06 2016

Reduction of Government litigation - withdrawal of appeals by Department before CESTAT

BOARD had requested all Chief Commissioners to send a copy of each application filed for withdrawal of the low value appeals before CESTAT to the Chief Commissioner (AR), CESTAT.

In this regard, it is brought to the notice of the Board that the requisite information has not been provided by all the Zones to the office of CC (AR) so far.

Board requests the Chief Commissioners to send a consolidated list of such departmental appeals, where applications of their withdrawal have been filed, in the prescribed proforma to the respective Registrar/ Dy. Registrar, CESTAT for early listing. A copy of this list may also be sent to the respective office of the CC(AR) at the Bench location so that the AR's office can co-ordinate for expeditious disposal.

CBEC Letter in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC., Dated: June 10 2016

- Annual Conference of Tax Administrators 2016- No Mobile Phones Please

CBDT informs the Principal Chief Commissioners that mobile phones will not be allowed inside Vigyan Bhavan for the duration of the Conference. They are requested to leave their mobile phones with their drivers to avoid any inconvenience later on at the venue.

What about iPad, Tablet, laptop - can they be sneaked in?

CBDT Office Memorandum F.No.401/17/2016-ITCC., Dated June 13 2016

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a nice day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in