News Update

Attack on Delhi Chief Secretary turning into street fights & legal battlesDAE Health Scheme notified for Sec 80D benefitsIssuance of Certificate of origin retroactively - period enhanced to twelve months from the date of shipment - Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement between the Republic of India and Japan) Rules, 2011 amendedSummons in GST (See 'JEST GST on GST Home Page')I-T - When Revenue had accepted assessee as investor in previous year, it cannot change his status to trader merely because he made some profit on shares: ITATEmployee Benefits - An OverviewST - Transport of goods by air Tax payable during period 10.09.2004 to 16.09.2004 and 16.6.2005 to 14.07.2005 as there was no exemption from payment of such tax during said period: CESTATComposition scheme eligibility, process and benefitsCX - There is no provision under CCR, 2004 for denial of credit on ground that assessee has admittedly deployed inputs in excess of ideal for achieving desired output level: CESTATIAS 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
 
Payment by Government Departments through e-payment

DDT in Limca Book of Records - Third Time in a rowTIOL-DDT 2985
06 12 2016
Tuesday

ON 31st March 2012, the Government issued a memorandum that with effect from 1st April 2012 all Ministries/Departments of the Government of India are directed to make all payments to private parties such as suppliers, contractors, grantee, loanee institutions etc. above Rs. 25,000 by payment advices, including electronically signed payment advices.

On 1st August 2016, the Government issued another memorandum reducing this limit to Rs. 10,000 stating,

"Since advancements in payment and banking technology have enabled a large number of transactions to be handled smoothly through the e-payment mode, the existing limit of Rs. 25,000/- prescribed in paragraph of this office O.M. dated 31st March 2012. has been further reviewed. It has now been decided to lower the threshold limit to Rs. 10,000/- in order to bring more payments under the purview of direct credit by electronic transfer to the bank account of the payee.

All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India are required with immediate effect to discharge all payments above Rs. 10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand only) to suppliers, contractors, grantee/loanee institutions etc. by issue of payment advices, including electronically signed-payment advices."

Now, the Government has further reduced the limit. A memorandum issued yesterday states,

In order to attain the goal of complete digitization of Government payments, the existing limit of Rs. 10,000/- prescribed in paragraph 2 of this office O.M. dated 1st August 2016 has been further reviewed. It has now been decided to lower the threshold limit to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).

All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India shall ensure with immediate effect that all payments above Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to suppliers, contractors, grantee/loanee institutions etc. are made by issue of payment advices only.

MoF, Department of Expenditure Office Memorandum in F.No.3(2)(1)/2016/R&P Rules/Amendment/649., Dated: December 05, 2016

Haywire Biometric Apparatus in CESTAT

IN a note for an RTI reply from CESTAT:

The biometric apparatus goes haywire and normalcy is restored on its own after sometime. After inspection, authorized agencies of NIC have informed that the defects in the machine may be due to different reasons like networking failure, mishandling of apparatus by users or wi-fi failure. No date wise record has been kept about malfunctioning/non functioning of bio-metric apparatus.

There are two machines installed in CESTAT- one is installed in wing no.2 on second floor, and another on first floor near court hall.

There is only one camera working on first floor. Six cameras are installed on second floor out of which 5 are working as on date. Camera installed in Single Member Branch registry (second floor) is non functional as on date.

GST will accelerate long haul transport - PM

ADDRESSING the inaugural session of PETROTECH - 2016 exhibition yesterday, the Prime Minister said,

The long awaited legislation on a national Goods and Services Tax has been passed. By removing physical barriers at state boundaries, GST will accelerate long haul transport and further increase efficiency.

Appeal to CESTAT from Commissioner (A) - Quantum of pre-deposit

AS per the Laws as amended by the Finance Act 2014 with effect from 06.08.2014, the amount of pre-deposit payable for appeals in Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax matters are:

1

Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals)

7.5% of the duty.

2

Appeal to CESTAT against an order of the jurisdictional Commissioner

7.5% of the duty

3

Appeal to the CESTAT against an order of Commissioner (Appeals)

10% of the duty

When you appeal to the Tribunal from an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), you have already deposited 7.5% at the time of appealing to the Commissioner (Appeals). So, when you appeal to the Tribunal, should you pay 10% or the difference of 2.5%?

In DDT 2439 17.09.2014, I raised this question - As per the amended provisions, a pre-deposit of 10 percent is to be made for an appeal to the Tribunal against an order of a Commissioner (Appeals). While appealing to the Commissioner (Appeals), an amount of 7.5 percent of the duty/penalty must have already been deposited. Now the doubt is whether the 10 percent deposit for appeal to the Tribunal is in addition to the 7.5 percent already deposited or is it inclusive of that?

Earlier in DDT 2394 - 11.07.2014, we had raised this doubt - "There is a doubt on payment of another 10 percent for the second appeal. Though the TRU letter states that  another  10 percent, the amendment does not say so clearly. So, there is a doubt whether the pre-deposit at the second appellate stage is 10 percent or 17.5 percent. Even if it is 17.5 percent, what will happen to the 7.5% deposited with the Commissioner (A)?. Shouldn't that also be considered as pre-deposit? This also needs clarification  statutorily."

A single Member Bench of the Tribunal in 2016-TIOL-3050-CESTAT-KOL held:

Neither Section 35F(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 nor CBEC Circular dated 16.09.2014 specifically mention whether 10% deposit required before Appeal is entertained should be inclusive or exclusive of 7.5% deposit made before the first appellate authority.

It is a well known fact that success rate of departmental cases before the appellate authorities is very poor. That is the reason that percentage of deposit required to be made before the first appellate authorities is as low as 7.5% of the disputed amounts or penalties. After success at the level of first appellate authority may be Legislature wants that the case has passed one test of first appeal successfully and Revenue deserves an additional 10% of the duty or penalty as deposit till the issue is finally decided in the second appellate stage.

In any case, Appellant is not at a loss in the above procedure of paying additional 10% of deposit, because in case Appellant wins then Appellant is eligible to interest from the date of deposit it made, as per Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 129EE of the Customs Act, 1962, all introduced w.e.f. 06.08.2014.

In case Appellant loses the case, then also Appellant will have to pay lesser interest for the period when amount was lying with the department as deposit.

Recently, a Division Bench of the Tribunal also came to a similar conclusion:

On plain reading of the afore said provisions, we find that the wordings employed therein is as clear as daylight. In clause (iii) it is unambiguously prescribed that any person aggrieved by a decision or order referred to Clause (b) of sub-Section (1) of Sec129A/35B of Customs Act/Central Excise Act, unless deposits 10% of the duty/penalty or duty and penalty, as the case may be, the appeal shall not be entertained. We do not find any reason to read the said provision in any other manner so as to come to the conclusion that the Appellants are required to deposit 2.5% and not 10% as prescribed under the said provision in view of the settled principle of statutory interpretation.

But what happens to the 7.5% already deposited at the time of appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). Will they refund it when the appellant files a further appeal to CESTAT?

For more details, please see Breaking News.

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a nice day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in


POST YOUR COMMENTS