News Update

GST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCGST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesI-T- Secured creditor has priority charge over secured asset, over claims of I-T Department & other Departments; any excess amount recovered by Secured Creditor from auction of secured asset, over & above the dues payable to it, are to be remitted to the Departments: HCFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesI-T - Once assssee on year of reversal has paid taxes on excess provision and similar feature appeared in earlier years and assesee had payments for liquidated damages on delay of deliverables, no adverse inference can be drawn: HCFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerST - Software development service & IT-enabled service provided by assessee was exempt from tax during relevant period, by virtue of CBEC's Notification & Circular; demands raised for such period not sustainable: CESTATUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayCus - Order rejecting exporter's request for conversion of Shipping Bills on grounds that the same has been made by exporter beyond period of three months from date of Let Export Order in terms of CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus : CESTATIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEACus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTATThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCX - As per settled law, a right acquired as result of a statutory provision, cannot be taken away retrospectively unless said statutory provision so provides or by necessary implication has such effect: CESTAT
 
CX - Subsequent packeting of pre-determined quantity of already marketable 'O' Ring & 'U' Cap seals in a plastic bag has not made products further marketable - No CE duty on Seal Kits: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JULY 28, 2016: THE appellant is a manufacturer of Pneumatic Cylinders & valves and discharged appropriate Central Excise duty.

In EA 2000 audit, it was observed that during the period June 1999 to March 2004, appellant had cleared 'Seal kits' for Pneumatic Cylinders & valves without Central Excise duty.

The appellant contended that the said 'Seal kits' were combination of 'O' Ring & 'U' Cap seals etc. which were bought out items and not manufactured and these were given in the form they had received as replacement in the Pneumatic Cylinders & valves supplied by them to the customers. And, therefore, no excise duty is liable to be paid as there is no manufacture.

The adjudicating authority upheld the allegations in the SCN and confirmed the duty demand.

While rejecting their appeal, the Commissioner(A) held that the items cleared by the appellant were termed as 'Seal kits' which was a manufacturing activity inasmuch as the appellant had put in a plastic cover various types of 'O' Ring & 'U' Cap seals which can be used for Pneumatic Cylinders & valves and the said 'Seal kits' consists of fixed number of particular seals.

Coming to such a conclusion, he rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.

Before the CESTAT the appellant reiterated their stand taken by the lower authorities and also relied upon the decisions in XL Telecom Ltd. (Andhra Pradesh High Court); Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. - 2004-TIOL-307-CESTAT-BANG, Goetze (India) Ltd. - 2004-TIOL-366-CESTAT-DEL, GeetaEngg. Works Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-386-CESTAT-MUM, Kapoor Lamp Shade Co. - 2015-TIOL-825-CESTAT-DEL & Neycer India Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-115-SC-CX.

After considering the submissions made by both sides, the Bench observed –

"6.2. The finding of both lower authorities that the packeting of various 'O' Ring & 'U' Cap seals and selling them into the market as 'Seal kits' would amount to manufacture is misconceived by the department. A pictorial representation is reproduced as to the dispute in question.

It can be seen from the picture that 'O' Ring & 'U' Cap seals are only packeted in plastic bags, this packeting remains undisputed.

6.3. On perusal of various documents like delivery challan and invoice raised by the appellant for the sale of this 'Seal kits' we find that the said invoice, as raised by the supplier, clearly indicates that the 'O' Ring & 'U' Cap seals are manufactured and cleared while the invoice raised by the appellant indicate the same as 'Seal kits' which indicate that there are miscellaneous bought out spare items and were constituted items for particular valve. The question of considering this packeting as manufacture does not arise as the 'O' Ring & 'U' Cap seals were already marketable when the supplier/manufacturer had manufactured the same and cleared to appellant. Subsequent packeting of pre-determined quantity of these in a plastic bag has not made the products further marketable. In the absence of any note to the chapter that packeting of pre-determined quantity would amount to manufacture, this activity in our view cannot be considered as a manufacturing activity…."

Holding, that by any stretch of imagination, packeting of 'O' Ring & 'U' Cap seals purchased by the appellant from various manufacturers, as spares, would not amount to manufacture, the order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

(See 2016-TIOL-1882-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023