TIOL-DDT 2881
04 07 2016
Monday

CBEC in a Circular says that the time limit for taking central excise registration of an establishment by a jeweller is being extended up to 31.07.2016.

The liability for payment of central excise duty will be with effect from 1st March, 2016. However, assessee jewellers may make the payment of excise duty for the months of March, 2016; April, 2016 and May, 2016 along with the payment of excise duty for the month of June, 2016 upto the extended date of 31.07.2016 .

Now, is the time limit being extended or is it extended? Will the Board again inform after it is actually extended? This is the language problem in the Board. They should get that English teacher.

In Circular No. 1021/9/2016-CX, dated March 21, 2016 , the Board instructed:

The registration of the establishment with the central excise department can be taken within 60 days from 1st March, 2016. However, the liability for payment of central excise duty will be with effect from 1st March, 2016, and as a special case for the month of March, 2016, the assessee jewelers will be permitted to make payment of excise duty along with the payment of excise duty for the month of April, 2016.

When this limitation was coming to an end in April, the Board in Circular No. 1026/14/2016-CX, dated, April 23, 2016, instructed:

In this regard, the time limit for taking central excise registration of an establishment by a jeweller is being extended up to 01.07.2016. Though, the liability for payment of central excise duty will be with effect from 1st March, 2016, the assessee jewelers may make the payment of excise duty for the months of March, 2016; April, 2016 and May, 2016 along with the payment of excise duty for the month of June, 2016 .

Now the Board says it is being extended till 31.07.2016. Wait for the next extension.

But can the Board really extend these dates without statutory mandate?

CBEC Circular No. 1033/21/2016-CX., Dated: July 01, 2016

Clearance of bunker fuels to Indian Ship/Vessel carrying containerized cargo - Board Specifies Procedure and Conditions

AS per Sl. No. 65A of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 clearance of bunker fuels IFO 180 CST and IFO 380 CST, for use in ships or vessels have been permitted without payment of Central Excise duty subject to the conditions specified under Sl. No. 52 of the annexure to the notification.

Board has now prescribed the procedure and conditions for supply of indigenous bunker fuel namely, IFO 180 CST and IFO 380 CST, without payment of Central Excise duty from the warehouse of the OMCs (Oil Manufacturing Companies) to the eligible ships/vessels under Notification No 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012.

CBEC Circular No. 1034/22/2016-CX., Dated: July 01, 2016

Interest On Supplementary Invoices

A point raised in the RAC Meeting of Mysore Central Excise Zone on 06.04.2016:

Due to the fluctuations in the Raw Material Market final products prices are changed on the quarterly basis with retrospective effect. Ultimately we have to demand through supplementary invoices for additional difference of price. However, department charges us Interest on delayed invoices& delayed payment, this is un-justice to the MSME units.

The Department explained:

It is an undisputed fact that where any duty of excise has not been paid or levied or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded or the differential duty has to be paid when supplementary invoices are issued by the assessee, then all such duty would have to be paid along with interest u/s 11AA. Show Cause Notices are being issued to various assesses, on the issue of non-payment of Interest on the differential duty paid on the Supplementary invoices raised for price escalation after the initial clearance of goods from the factory in view of Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the case law of M/s SKF India Ltd., 2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX.

The apex court has clearly stated that·

"It is to be noted that the assessee was able to demand from its customers the balance of the higher prices by virtue of retrospective revision of the prices. It, therefore, follows that at the time of sale the goods carried a higher value and those were cleared on short payment of duty. The differential duty was paid only later when the assessee issued supplementary invoices to its customers demanding the balance amounts. Seen thus it was clearly a case of short payment of duty though indeed completely unintended and without any element of deceit etc. The payment of differential duty thus clearly came under sub-section (2B) of section 11A and attracted levy of interest under section 11AB of the Act."

However now the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has doubted the correctness of the case law of M/s SKF India Ltd., 2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX on the aforesaid issue and has referred the case relating to M/s Steel Authority of India Vs. CCE, Raipur, 2015-TIOL-292-SC-CX, to the Larger Bench of the Apex Court.

The Department concluded:

As per the existing provisions if there was a delayed payment, interest has to be paid but as the issue has been reopened by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the final decision is awaited.

FTP - New ICDs Included

DGFT has amended para 4.37 (a) of Handbook of Procedures (2015-2020):

Hosur (Tamil Nadu) and Nattakkam Village (Kottayam Taluk and District) shall be added at the end of ICDs listed in paragraph 4.37 (a) of Hand Book of Procedures (2015-2020) related to Port of Registration.

DGFT Public Notice No. 20/2015-2020., Dated: July 1, 2016

Board requests for discipline/obedience from Field

BY Office Order No.53/2016, dated 10.05.2016, the CBEC transferred 190 Assistant/Deputy Commissioners. It was directed that the transferred officers must join at their new place of posting forthwith but not later than 17.05.2016 under intimation to the Board.

The Chief Commissioners/Directors General concerned were directed to send compliance reports regarding joining of the officers to the Board by 20.05.2016. It was also informed that all representations received till date regarding transfer and posting in the grades of Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise stand disposed of and that no representations whatsoever shall be entertained before they join at their new place of posting.

Similarly, by Office Order No. 54/2016, Board transferred 145 Additional/Joint Commissioners with identical directions.

Obeying Board orders is not really a favourite pastime in the field. Everybody knows that the only consequence of disobeying the Board is the Board would view it seriously.

Now, after more than 45 days of the time limit fixed by the Board, it is found that some of the transferred officers are yet to be relieved by the concerned Commissionerates/Directorates.

The Board requests that all the officers who have not been relieved so far may be relieved by 04.07.2016 and compliance report sent by 08.07.2016.

Is there no way the Board can make its officers obey its orders? How long will they go on requesting the subordinate officers to obey?

CBEC F.No.C.50/30/2016-Ad.II., Dated: July 01, 2016

Until tomorrow with more DDT

Have a nice Day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in