Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiainternational.com HRindiaonline.com
 
LOGIN
Forgot Password |  Register
Saturday , February 28, 2015 | Updated : Feb 28, 14:53 IST
Income Tax    Customs    Excise    Service Tax    FEMA    DGFT    SEZ    Misc    Pitara    Budget   
About Us Contact Us Advertise
Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiaonline.com Taxindiainternational.com
BUDGET FLASH
 
'Substantial value' from assets located in India - when does Sec 9 get triggered? - Finance Bill provides an answer (See 'Budget Run-Up') Is proposed Section 78B of FA, 1994unconstitutional? (See 'Budget Run-Up') Duty not paid - Penalty follows in all cases, suppression or not (See 'Budget Run-Up') Place of Effective Management - Finance Bill proposes change to determine resident status (See 'Budget Run-Up') Interest paid by branch of foreign bank to HO and overseas branches chargeable to tax and subject to TDS Jaitley offers minor respite on depreciation u/s 32(iia)(See 'Budget Run-Up') GTA ST is on 30 % (See 'Budget Run-Up') Bye Bye to Education (CESSES)(See 'Budget Run-Up') Dead wood & something more removed from provisions of Settlement in Central Excise & Customs (See 'Budget Run-Up') Pleasant Amendment in Section 11AC (See 'Budget Run-Up') Section 80 of FA, 1994 to fade into oblivion - a draconian step? (See 'Budget Analysis') Mutual Fund distribution - Service tax makes a comeback (See 'Budget Analysis') Time to gear-up for GST (See 'Budget Analysis') Recovery of credit taken wrongly but not utilized is possible now - First accrued is first utilized - new Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 (See 'Budget Analysis') What happens to Education Cess credit lying in balance? (See 'Budget Analysis') Definition of Resident company redefined in Finance bill, 2015 (See 'Budget Analysis') Instant tea, Iced tea, LED lights/lamps brought under MRP assessment (See 'Budget Analysis') ST Valuation - If courts take a contrary view - Do the obvious - Amend the Act - Delhi High Court Ruling in Intercontinental Consultants undone (See 'Budget Analysis') Service tax exemption availed by non-resident Commission Agent to Indian exporter withdrawn (See 'Budget Analysis') Service tax exemption withdrawn for Mutual Fund Agent to MF; Distributor to MF or AMC; service by Lottery agent to distributor and also free telephone calls made by Airport and hospitals Litigation Management - Monetary Limit for case to be heard by Single ITAT Member hiked to Rs 15 lakh (See 'Budget Analysis') Service provided by Government brought under tax net Service Tax rate of 14% to be applicable only after enactment: education cess to continue till then Major changes proposed in Section 11 AC - No penalty for normal period cases if duty is paid along with interest within 30 days from Show Cause Notice Exclusion of value of rails - Retrospective exemption given Retrospective exemption granted to Railway or tramway track construction material Finance Bill - Cash seized to be adjusted towards assessee's tax liability Central Excise & Service Tax assessees allowed to issue digitally signed invoices Finance Bill cleans up provisions relating to Indirect Transfers under Section 9 of I-T Act MAT rationalised for members of AOP (Association of Persons) Rationalisation of Penal Provisions under Service Tax - Section 80 deleted No Change in Corporate Tax Rate for FY 2015-16 Chit funds and lottery to come under Service Tax Intaxicating - alcohol job work to attract Service tax Gold Monetisation Scheme: Depositors and jewellers to earn interest on metal account (See 'Mbuzz') Wealth tax gone but 2% surcharge levied on super rich; Medical allowance hiked to Rs 25000 (See 'Budget Analysis') Rental income from assets held by REITs to be taxed in hands of unit holders (See 'Budget Analysis') Foreign assets purchased out of tax evaded: 10 years jail; offence made non-compoundable and 300% penalty (See 'Budget Analysis') DTC Bill killed; Many good aspects incorporated in present I-T Act Service tax Negative List to be pruned No Service Tax on Varisth Bima Yojana Transport Allowance limit hiked to Rs 1600 Sec 80CCD benefit hiked by Rs 50,000 per annum Jaitley hikes exemption limit for medi claim from Rs 15K to 25K; for Sr Citizens it is to be 30K Clean Energy Cess hiked to Rs 200/- PMT; No service tax on effluent treatment plants Service tax rate goes up to 14% but education cess gone Excise duty on cigarette and tobacco hiked; Excise registration to be done in two working days; Cenvat Credit period extended from six months to 12 months TP threshold limit hiked from Rs 5 Crore to 20 Crore; Capital gains by FIIs not to be subjected to MAT Wealth Tax to be abolished; 2% surcharge levied on wealthy SAD removed for most goods with minor exception GAAR postponed for two years; Tax rate on royalty and FTS reduced to 10% Presence of Fund Managers not to be construed as PE Capital gains regime and STT regime to be rationalised to provide pass through facility Unreported assets outside India - Govt to make it predicate offence under PMLA Black Money Bill to be tabled - 10 years jail proposed; 300% penalty; No Settlement Commission option; No deductions to be allowed; even banks and companies to face prosecution and penalty Corporate tax rate to be reduced to 25% over four years Fiscal Deficit to be 3.9% in next fiscal HCs to have designated courts for resolution of Commercial disputes; Bill to be tabled Defence outlay hiked to Rs 2.46 lakh crore for 2015-16 Special Assistance like Telangana to be provided to Bihar, West Bengal also AIIMS to be set up in Punjab, Assam, J&K, HP, TN and Bihar + IIT in Karnataka + ISM Dhanbad becomes IIT + IIM to be set up in J & K Education Loan: Govt to set up formal platform to fund it Govt to launch National Skill Mission to enhance employability of youth Govt to go for Procurement Legislation; proposes mechanism to resolve contract disputes Govt to develop heritage sites to promote tourism FDI - Artificial distinction between FII & Portfolio Investment to go Govt to put in place New Direct Tax and Indirect Tax regime matching global standards Govt to introduce New Gold Monetisation Scheme; to introduce Indian Gold Coin with Ashok Chkra Govt to reform EPF and ESI Acts to make it more liberal Commodity Commission to be merged with SEBI Govt to set up Public Debt Management Agency to monitor borrowings Rs 5000 Cr allocated to National Infrastructure Development Fund Expert Panel to be set up to do away with prior-approval for starting business Govt earmarks Rs 1000 Cr to support tech start-ups FM allows tax-free bond option for road, rail and irrigation Investment in Infra Sector to go up by Rs 70,000 Crore; Govt to set up National Investment in Infrastructure; Govt to allocate Rs 20,000 Crore Unclaimed deposits of Rs 9000 Crore in PPF & EPF to be appropriated for Senior Citizen Welfare Fund NBFCs with Rs 500 Cr turnover to be construed as Financial Institution To improve Ease of Doing Business Index - Govt to go for New Bankruptcy Act
 
Bookmark and Share
RAISING DEMAND FOR MISUSE OF END-USE EXEMPTION A DEMANDING ISSUE!

RAISING DEMAND FOR MISUSE OF END-USE EXEMPTION A DEMANDING ISSUE!

By R Raghavendra Rao

HOW to demand Customs duty when any post-import condition is violated? If we take one such Notification, the most famous 64/88-Cus dated 1.3.88, it imposed a post-import obligation of giving free treatment to 40 per cent of the outdoor patients. How to demand duty when the importer does not satisfy the condition therein? Can the duty be demanded under Section 28? Well, the issue makes an interesting study. First, we have the answer in Board’s Circular 73/2000 dated 1.9.2000.

The said circular discusses the issue in detail and clarifies that:

“In number of cases the Department has invoked provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act for realization of customs duty on the ground that the post-importation condition, as stipulated in Notification No. 64/88, had not been fulfilled. In many of the cases proviso to Section 28(1) were also invoked alleging suppression, mis-declaration etc. Sometimes the duties were demanded under Section 28 even for importation which had taken place more than five years before the issue of show cause notice. In many of the cases such demand notices were set aside by the appellate authorities holding that there was no justification for alleging suppression or mis-declaration and since the notice was not issued within normal time limit, the demand of duty was not sustainable.”

“References were made to Law Ministry. It has been opined that notification like No. 64/88-Cus., which put post-import conditions of continuing nature, every day of breach, starts a new limitation for the purpose of Section 28. Accordingly, the limitation for violation of post-import obligations would start from the last day of violation preceding initiation of proceedings. In the second reference, it was clarified by the Law Ministry that Section 28 appears to deal with cases where the duty was leviable at the point of import but was somehow not levied or short-levied, that it does not appear to cover cases where duty was not leviable at the time of import because of conditional exemption but became leviable subsequently by reasons of subsequent events”.

“Field formations are advised to issue show cause notices for demand of duty by invoking the provisions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus, without mentioning Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherever the normal period of limitation i.e. one year provided under Section 28 (1) (a) is over”.

“The instructions contained in this letter will apply mutatis mutandis to other exemption notifications also where post-import conditions as stipulated in the notification are not fulfilled”.

For the time being let us keep the Board’s Circular aside and go through the two clarifications given by the Ministry of law, enclosed to the above circular. If we examine the same, we find some interesting argument.

(1) Ministry of Law, Justice & Co. Affairs, Department of Legal Affairs

The objection is whether duty demand would be time bound. Section 28(1)(a) provides for a one year limitation where duty has not been levied or has been short levied or erroneously refunded. The Section appears to deal with cases where the duty was leviable at the point of import but was somehow not levied or short-levied. It does not appear to cover cases where duty was not leviable at the time of import because of conditional exemption but became leviable subsequently by reason of subsequent events. In the present case, the importer was entitled to exemption subject to meeting the continuing obligation. The duty liability would arise when that obligation is not satisfied. Hence, it appears possible to demand duty if the beneficiary hospitals are not meeting the obligation any more.

(2) Department of Legal Affairs

CBEC has raised a query as to whether a notice for demand can be issued for a period beyond five years in respect of duty exemption wrongly availed under Exemption Notification No. 64/88.

In Mediwell Hospital case ( 2002-Taxindiaonline-69-SC-Cus ), the Supreme Court classified the conditions into pre-conditions and post-conditions. The Apex Court further held that the very notification granting exemption must be construed to cast continuing obligation on the part of all those who have obtained the certificate from the authority and on the basis of that to have imported equipments of customs duty to give free treatment at least to 40% of the out-door patients as well as would give free treatment to all the indoor patients belonging to the families within income less than Rs. 500 per month.

From the above background it appears that the above cases dealt with the duty liability because of non-compliance of post-importation conditions which are not only in para 4(b) of the Table but in para 2 of the Table as well. Since the post-importation conditions are continuing obligations, it appears that everyday of breach starts a new limitation for the purpose of section 28.

Now, as per the clarification at Sl No 1 above, the situation is not covered under Section 28 as it is not a case where the duty was short levied or not levied at the time of import. But as per Sl No 2, Section 28 is not altogether ruled out because “it appears that every day breach starts a new limitation for the purpose of Section 28”.

The issue is so complex that there is contradiction even within the clarification by Ministry of Law! If Section 28 is not applicable for such demands as clarified at point No 1, then where is the question of any limitation for the purpose of Section 28 in Point No 2?

Interestingly the Board’s Circular also does not clear the confusion. It says “Filed formations are advised to issue show cause notices for demand of duty by invoking the provisions of Notification No. 64/88-Cus, without mentioning Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 wherever the normal period of limitation i.e. one year provided under Section 28 (1) (a) is over.

Does this mean, if the normal period is not over, can the demand be made under Section 28(1)(a)? If the provisions of Section 28 are not applicable as clarified by MOL in point no 1, then how demand can be made for normal period under the same Section?

Now let us go through some of the decisions on this tricky issue:

Karnataka High Court in Medical relief society of south kanara Vs Union of India ( 2003-Taxindiaonline-35-HC-KAR-CUS ).

“Failure to discharge that obligation was liable to expose the equipment to confiscation besides entitling the respondent to recover the amount of duty payable on the same. Proceedings for recovery of the exempted customs duty or the confiscation of the equipment in the above circumstances does not fall foul of Section 28”.

In yet another case, Lady Amphthil Nurses Instns. Vs Commissioner of Cus., Chennai ( 2002-Taxindiaonline-43-Cestat-Del-LB ), it was held :

56. Thus infringement could be only prospective from the date of clearance of the goods. Since it was a post-importation obligation, therefore, liability to pay duty or confiscation of the goods could arise only subsequent to the date of clearance of the goods. In the absence of any specific period, the liability could arise only when there is infringement of the condition and hence Section 28 did not apply.

Interestingly in para 39 and 40 of the above decision, the ratio of Karnataka High Court was followed as under:

40. It would thus be clear that the above decision of the High Court decides that (a) Customs can start recovery proceeds, (b) Recovery will be of the amount which was exempted, (c) equipment can be confiscated, and (d) proceedings of recovery do not fall foul of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.

A combined reading of para 39,40 and 56 of the above larger bench decision gives an impression that only limitation under Section 28 is not applicable, but the case would not fall foul of Section 28 .

Finally after going through the Board’s Circular, opinion by the Ministry of law and the above case law, I am confused as to:

+ Whether any demand of customs duty can be made under the Customs Act without mentioning Section 28?

+ If the duty has to be demanded in terms of the Notification, what is the time limit?

+ When Section 28 is not applicable, and duty has to demanded only in terms of the Notification, where is the question of every day breach and limitation for the purpose of Section 28

Fortunately I got answers to all above. Not from the Board’s Circular, not from the opinion of Ministry of law not from Section 28, but from a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Supreme Court in case of Jagdish Cancer Research Centre Vs Commissioner of Customs ( 2002-Taxindiaonline-119-SC-CUS ) held:

A reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 125 together makes it clear that liability to pay duty arises under sub-section (2) in addition to the fine under sub-section (1). Therefore, where an order is passed for payment of customs duty along with an order of imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation of goods, it shall only be referable to sub-section (2) of Section 125 of the Customs Act. It would not attract Section 28(1) of the Customs Act which covers the cases of duty not levied, short levied or erroneously refunded etc.

So, when any duty has to be recovered for violation of post-import condition, one has to issue show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act proposing confiscation of the goods invoking Section 111(o) and order for payment of duty in addition to fine under sub section (2) of Section 125. Hence it is requested that suitable fresh clarification may be issued in this regard.

(The author is Superintendent of Central Excise and the veiws expressed are personal. The author can be mailed at rags68@rediffmail.com )


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
 
Subscribe TIOL Tube Channel on YouTube
TIOL Mobile App
TIOL SEARCH
 
TIOL Subscriptions
 All-In-One Package
 Indirect Tax Package
 Income Tax Package
<< More Packages>>
 
   
             
Income Tax Customs Excise Service Tax FEMA DGFT SEZ Misc Pitara Budget
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • ITAT Cases
  • Instructions
  • Advance Ruling
  • Settlement
  • Other Case
  • Directorate of Income Tax (Systems)
  • Tariff Notfn
  • Non Tariff Notfn
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Settlement
  • Advance Ruling
  • Safeguard Duty Notfn
  • Anti-dumping Notfn
  • Drawback Cases
  • MISC Circulars
  • Tariff Notfn
  • Non Tariff Notfn
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Settlement
  • Advance Ruling
  • Excise Amendment
  • Clean Energy Cess Notfn
  • MISC Circulars
  • 37B Order
  • Commr.(A) Order
  • CESTAT
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • Cestat Cases
  • Miscellaneous
  • Advance Ruling
  • FAQ
  • Finance Act, 1994
  • Commr. (A) Orders
  • 37B Order
  • Removal of Difficulty
  • VCES
  • Accounting Head
  • Exchange Manual
  • Fema Notifications
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • RBI Notifications
  • Act
  • Rules
  • Regulations
  • Master Circulars
  • RBI Circulars
  • Depository Scheme
  • Press Note
  • Notifications
  • Circulars
  • Public Notices
  • Trade Notice
  • FTDR Amendment 2010
  • MISC
  • State Acts
  • Notifications
  • Instructions
  • Act 2005
  • Rules 2006
  • DGEP
  • State Policy
  • SC Cases
  • HC Cases
  • VAT Cases
  • Deputation Posts
  • Service News
  • The Insider
  • Transfer
  • Promotion
  • Recruitment Rules
  • Transfer Policy
  • Training Circulars
  • Service Cases
  • MISC
  • Pay Commission
  • Cadre Review
  • Budget Circular 2013-14
  • Union Budgets
  • Economic Surveys
  • Budget Speeches
  • Finance Acts
  • Finance Bill
  • TRU - D. O. Letter
  • A Taxindiaonline Website. Copyright © 2014 Taxindiaonline.com Pvt.Ltd. All rights reserved. | Powered by 4th Dimension