TIOL-DDT 2895
25 07 2016
Monday

POSTAL Dept Prevented from Paying Service Tax by Revenue Department - Board Frowns

As per Rule 6(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 while every assessee is required to pay service tax electronically through internet banking, the jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, allow the assessee to deposit service tax by any other mode.

CBEC is informed by the Department of Posts that some Deputy/Assistant Commissioners are not allowing them permission to pay by cheque.

Board has taken a serious view of such refusals to exercise discretion, even in deserving cases.

Board informs that the Department of Posts has been refused permission by the Controller General of Accounts to open a current account, which would have enabled electronic payment. Under the circumstances they can make a payment by cheque only.

But the learned Deputy Commissioner would not allow payment by cheque. So, how does the postal department pay the tax? No way!

Board tells the Commissioners and other senior officers:

This is the attitude of some Revenue Officers; they wouldn't mind sacrificing even revenue, for procedure. And they would never like to use their discretion even if it means foregoing revenue.

I tremble at the prospect of a GST regime with these officers.

By the way, why can't the Controller General of Accounts relax the conditions at his end and allow the Postal Department to open a Current account so as to enable the Department of Posts to pay such taxes electronically and also engage in electronic transactions rather than not going green & spending a fortune on printing of cheques?  

CBEC Instruction in F.No.137/08/2013-Service Tax., Dated July 22, 2016

Indirect Taxes Dispute Resolution Scheme - CBEC Chairman Exhorts Officers to Make the Scheme Success

IN order to reduce litigation, Government has come out with an Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 in this year's Budget. The scheme provides an opportunity to an assessee whose cases are pending before Commissioner (Appeals), to pay the duty, interest and penalty equivalent to 25% of penalty imposed and file a declaration, consequent to which the proceedings would be closed and immunity from prosecution granted except in certain cases.

Board has also issued suitable instructions on 1st June, 2016 in this regard.

While the scheme provides for a mechanism for early settlement of disputes pending in appeal before Commissioner (Appeal), the success of the scheme will depend upon more and more assessees coming forward and availing the scheme.

To ensure its success, the CBEC Chairman urges his Commissioners/Principal Commissioners and Chief Commissioners to give widespread publicity in their respective jurisdictions bearing in mind that the scheme is applicable to declarations made upto 31st December, 2016.

The Chairman expects them to personally monitor the cases pending before Commissioner (Appeals) in their respective jurisdiction and send him a progress report on a monthly basis.

CBEC Chairman's D.O Letter No. 113/Chairman/(CBEC)/2016., Dated July 22, 2016

Also see -

DDT 2857   Indirect Tax DRS, 2016

DDT 2858  Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme Rules, 2016 Notified

DDT 2859  Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme 2016 - CBEC Issues Instruction

Accredited Client Programme (ACP) and Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) programme

CBEC has decided to merge the two facilitation schemes ACP and AEO into a combined three-tier AEO programme, and also enhance the scope of these programmes so as to provide further benefits to the entities who have demonstrated strong internal control system and willingness to comply with the laws administered by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The prominent features of the new programme are:

i. Inclusion of Direct Port Delivery of imports to ensure just-in-time inventory management by manufacturers - clearance from wharf to warehouse

ii. Inclusion of Direct Port Entry for factory stuffed containers meant for export by AEOs

iii. Special focus on small and medium scale entities - any entity handling 25 import or export documents annually can become part of this programme

iv. Provision of Deferred Payment of duties - delinking duty payment and Customs clearance

v. Mutual Recognition Agreements with other Customs Administrations

vi. Faster disbursal of drawback amount

vii. Fast tracking of refunds and adjudications

viii. Extension of facilitation to exports in addition to imports

ix. Self-certified copies of FTA / PTA origin related or any other certificates required for clearance would be accepted

x. Request based on-site inspection /examination

xi. Paperless declarations with no supporting documents

xii. Recognition by Partner Government Agencies and other Stakeholders as part of this programme

FTP - Removal of M/s. Trans Border Safety Control Inspection Services LLC, USA from the list of Inspection and Certification Agencies

TRANS Border Safety Control Inspection Services LLC, USA was notified as Pre Shipment Inspection Agency vide Public Notice No. 34(RE: 2013)/2009-14 dated 29.10.2013. A Show Cause Notice No. 01/53/171/214/AM16/PSIA-101/IC dated 3/6/2016 was issued to them for mis-declaration in the Pre-Shipment Inspection Certificate issued by them. Thereafter, an adjudication order 01/53/171/214/AM16/PSIA-101/IC dated 18/7/2016 was issued for cancellation of their recognition as Pre Shipment Inspection Agency and imposition of penalty.

Therefore, the Director General of Foreign Trade has deleted the name of Trans Border Safety Control Inspection Services LLC, USA placed at Sl. No.3, from Appendix 2G. Trans Border Safety Control Inspection Services LLC, USA is no longer eligible to issue Pre-Shipment Inspection Certificate.

DGFT Public Notice No. 23/2015-2020., Dated July 22, 2016

Income Tax -14 Lakh High Value Transactions - Big Brother Watching

DIRECTORATE of Systems, CBDT has processed non-PAN AIR transactions which resulted in identification of around 7 lakh high risk transaction clusters having around 14 lakh non-PAN AIR transactions.

The income Tax Department will be sending letters to those who had high value transactions. The letter would read something like this:

Subject:  Request for linking of large value transaction(s)to a valid PAN

The income Tax Department has received information about large value transactions relating to you under the Annual Information Return (AIR) without a valid PAN. The list of such transactions is provided overleaf.

You are requested to submit the online response:

xxxx

Submission of electronic response will be treated as response to this letter. You are not required to visit Income tax office or send any letter or document in response to this letter. In case you make a mistake in submission of response, you may further revise it by login to e-filing portal.

If no response is electronically submitted within 15 days of receipt of this letter, appropriate proceedings under Income Tax Act, 1961 may be initiated.

The details are about sale and purchase of immovable property and cash deposit in bank account.

CBDT F.No.225/193/2016/ITA.II., Dated: July 22, 2016

From Supreme Court - Recent Cases

SERVICE Tax - quantum of tax involved is only about Rs.59,000/- and there is a delay of 208 days in filing SLP. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.: As recorded by the Supreme Court, the tax amount in this SLP by the Government is Rs. 59,000. How did this case reach the Supreme Court? As per the Board's litigation policy, the case should not be taken to Supreme Court if the tax involved is less than Rs. 25 lakh. In a judgement delivered on 8th October 2013 2013-TIOL-52-SC-IT-LB, the Supreme Court observed,

"Revenue cannot be allowed to flip-flop on the issue and it ought let the matter rest rather than spend the tax payers' money in pursuing litigation for the sake of it.

And the Government filed this SLP for a paltry sum of Rs. 59,000 and that too with a delay of 208 days. And this is filed in 2016 when so much of publicity is made about ‘ease of doing business', litigation policy and such high sounding jargon. And the Government is seriously advocating GST to make life more easy for the taxpayers. And the Government was represented in the Supreme Court by the Attorney General and four advocates. What a way to spend the taxpayers' money!

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Maruthamalai Murugan Industries - 2016-TIOL-113-SC- ST

Central Excise - Demand - Company in Liquidation - No point in deciding appeal on merits: official liquidator informs that assets of the company have been disposed of. Since there is no money for payment, even if this appeal is allowed and the Excise Department is held entitled to recover the amount, it would not be in a position to recover any amount from the company in liquidation. Therefore, it is not deemed proper to go into the merits of this appeal because of the aforesaid reason.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Vidarbha Veneer Industries - 2016-TIOL-111-SC-CX

Central Excise - Job work - valuation - whether the goods returned from the premises of job worker after processing under Rule 12B , subjected to further manufacturing process like cutting to short length, stitching ends, ironing, folding and packing resulting in enhancement the value of product, are to be assessed at transaction value (value at which assessee cleared the goods to the customer) or at cost of grey fabric and job charges in terms of judgment in the case of M/s. Ujagar Prints. Tribunal in the impugned judgment has arrived at a finding that after receiving the product from job worker, at whose end excise duty is duly paid, the assessee simply cuts them into Dhotis and, therefore, in terms of Rule 12(B) read with Circular No. 557/53/2000-CX dated 03.11.2000, it will continue to be classifiable as fabric under Chapter 52/54/55 and such a process undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. In that process, definitely there is value addition but in terms of Rule 12B and the Board's Circular, the value to be adopted is only the value at the end of the job workers premises. There is no merit in the demand of the revenue for fixing the duty liability on the sale value of the goods sold by the appellant. That is completely against the provisions of Rule 12B read with Board's Circular. 

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Kitex Ltd - 2016-TIOL-110-SC-CX

Rajasthan CM Seeks Clarification on Service Tax Exemption For Tubewell Construction

RAJASTHAN Chief Minister Ms. Vasundhara Raje has expressed her concern on notices issued by central excise officers to over a hundred Public Health and Engineering Department contractors in the district of Jhunjhnu, Sikar and Bikaner regarding service tax liabilities for construction of tubewells and related services.

In a letter addressed to the Union Finance Minister Mr. Arun Jaitley Ms. Raje said notices have been issued by field officers under Central Excise Commissioner, Jodhpur region to the contractors who have been awarded work orders by PHED for tubewell construction and related activities. PHED officials have also been sent letters by Central Excise asking them to provide lists of service providers.

She said issue of notices have resulted in serious consternation among the PHED contractors. The Chief Minister said levying service tax on an essential state government function would simply mean a lumpsum transfer of funds from the state government kitty to the central government which shall affect the financial management of the state exchequer.

She said it appears that the public policy impact and public fisc consideration were not factored in during issue of these notices by the field officers under Commissioner Central Excise, Jodhpur. At the least a consultation should have been held with the officers of PHED, she added.

Ms. Raje requested Mr. Jaitley that a clarificatory notification be issued at the earliest applied with retrospective effect, unambiguously stating that boring/construction of tubewells etc. are covered under the exemption under Clause 12 and Clause 25; and the various activities such as construction, erection, installation etc. mentioned in the 2012 notification issued by Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India u/s 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 are only indicative. She is obviously referring to Notification No. 25/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012.

Centre sacks 111 lawyers hired by UPA government

THE Hindu today carried a story with the above headline. The news story reported, "In an ‘unprecedented' move, the NDA government has sacked as many as 111 lawyers appointed during the UPA regime to represent the Centre in indirect tax cases before various judicial bodies."

It is unfortunate that a respected paper like the Hindu should report like this. The CBEC selection process may be faulty, but there is absolutely nothing to do with the UPA or NDA Government. The NDA Government is in office for more than two years and during this period, the UPA appointed lawyers were very much in service. In fact, even though their tenure actually ended in October 2014, they continued till June 2016 for nearly two years into the NDA regime. The CBEC has called for applications and most probably, all these 111 ‘sacked lawyers' may be reappointed as they have huge experience in Indirect Tax matters.

The selection for these posts are made by Commissioners and Chief Commissioners and usually there is no political interference. It is sad that a purely law job is being politicalised without verifying the facts by a reputed newspaper.

For clarity see - DDT 2872 - Litigation Management in CBEC - Govt Appoints 251 Standing Counsels - Rescinds 111

To tax and to please is not given to men; but to tax and be fair is.

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a nice day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in