In DDT 2962, while highlighting the collateral damage caused while granting Service Tax largesse to the aforesaid endeavour of the government - UDAN -  "Ude Deshka Aam Nagrik", we had mentioned - While granting exemption to air passengers, CBEC by mistake withdraws Cenvat credit on input services for renting of hotels.

What had actually happened is best explained by extracting the following table.

Kindly Note - In between the entries 5 and 6 to the notification 26/2012-ST, an entry 5A was inserted by the amending notification 38/2016-ST dated 30.08.2016 resulting in the following -

Inasmuch as whereas the condition attached to serial no. 6 above prior to insertion of Serial no. 5A was non-availment of CENVAT credit on Inputs and Capital goods, consequent upon the insertion of Serial no. 5A the   condition has enlarged itself to mandate non-availment of CENVAT credit on Inputs, Capital Goods and Input Services.

DDT also said -

+ Even before the Aam Nagrik has taken to the skies, the hospitality sector is already in the pit!

+ Hopefully, the CBEC realises this gaffe and extinguishes the flames before they spread far and wide.

Our sincere plea has been accepted by the responsive CBEC and that too within a week.

Yesterday, a corrigendum was issued to the notification 38/2016-ST and which does the following -

(i) in line 23, for "5" read "6";?

(ii) in the TABLE, in column 1, for "5A" read "6A";?

(iii) in line 31, for "5A of the TABLE" read "6A of the TABLE".

Read DDT 2969 dated: 11-11-2016 for details

TIOL TUBE Discussed:

Budget 2016 introduced several assessee-friendly amendments in Rule 6 of the CCRs, 2004. However, there was one anomaly in the amended Rule. Not many observed this in fine print, but during Post-Budget Analysis, we raised this issue and pointed out that the Rule has not been properly drafted to reflect the intention of the Government.

Now, the responsive Board has done the needful. An amendment has been made to sub-rule (3) of Rule 6. The amended Rule reads:

(i) pay an amount equal to six per cent. of value of the exempted goods and seven per cent. of value of the exempted services subject to a maximum of the sum total of opening balance of the credit of input and input services available at the beginning of the period to which the payment relates and the credit of input and input services taken during that period; or”;

As per this amended provision, assuming during a month, the value of exempted goods to be Rs one crore, the 6% amount would be Rs 6,00,000/-. However, if the opening balance of the credit of input and input Services plus the credit taken on all inputs and input Services during that month is Rs 1,20,000/- only, then the 6% amount would be restricted to Rs 1,20,000/- only.

All is fine, but even this new amendment has a problem. While Table No 6 of the ER1 return (CENVAT statement) has separate columns for fresh credit of inputs, input services and Capital goods, the opening balance of credit at the beginning of the Month does not have item-wise break up. This means, the opening balance of Credit includes capital goods credit and it is not possible to identify the “opening balance of credit on inputs and input services available” for the purpose of Rule 6(3).

Perhaps it is not easy to solve the problems created by this Rule which was born as Rule 57CC with several congenital defects. Even the surgery performed in 2016 budget seems to have side effects.

The Central Government had issued notifications No 34, 35 & 36/2015-CE and goofed up the entire scheme of concessional duty offered for 'Make in India' Scheme. After TIOL and its Netizens quickly pointed out the mistakes in drafting and the intent, the Government was quick to amend them by issuing Notifications No 37, 38, 39-CE, all dated 21.07.2015 setting right its  Confusing, Complicated and Controversial Notifications.

The Board was quick to act and in a day's time itself they rectified the mistake by issuing a corrigendum. DDT reported about the correction being done in DDT - 2500.

In Cob(Web) - 419 published on OCTOBER 23, 2014 , titled 'Rising NPAs - Fault lies with our lax Regulator!' + Mixed Buzz published on OCTOBER 28, 2014, titled Govt disbands PSBs; sets up Panel to select CMDs for Public Sector Banks. In Cob(Web) - 151 published on September 3, 2009, titled 'New contours of modern Indian economy: Has Revenue Secretary's post indeed become redundant? - Part III' and in Cob(Web) - 152 titled "Dear FM, it's time to merge CBDT & CBEC, and create a Council for Revenue Management as policy catalyst!" published on September 10, 2009, TIOL talked about scrapping of the post of Revenue Secretary and setting up of a Tax Council to take care of the legislative activities.

In its First Report, the Tax Administration Reform Commission (TARC), headed by Dr Parthasarthy Shome, has called for scrapping of not only the post of Revenue Secretary but also the liquidation of Revenue Hqs and their functions can be distributed among both the Boards. The Commission has also called for elevating the post of Chairman in the Revenue Boards to the level of Secretary to the Union Government and the Boards must be given financial autonomy. The TARC has also called up a Tax Council model to make the system more efficient.

The Shome Commission has to say: "... the post of Revenue Secretary does not merit presence in a modern tax administration. Instead, a Governing Council should be introduced with the chairs of the Boards alternating as its chairperson ... and the Council should include members from the non-government sector as well. The Governing Council will oversee the functioning of the two Boards and approve broad strategies ..."

TIOL is thankful to the Commission for finding substance in our views and giving it due place in its Report with some extra details relating to who should head this Council and developing TPL and TRU as a powerhouse of researched fiscal wisdom.

NOTIFICATION 26/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 provided abatement of 75% and 70% to two different groups of residential complexes / units. In DDT 2064 13.03.2013, while reporting a Netizen's dilemma, it was mentioned:

"English Vinglish:  Service Tax - Abatement - Construction of Residential Unit - Confusion between FM's Speech and CBEC Notification

DDT added: The notification clearly failed to give effect to the intention of the Government reflected in the Budget speech of FM. The Notification in the present form allows 75% abatement to a flat having a carpet area of 1000 sft and costing Rs 2 crores. Actually, in such cases, the abatement should have been only 70%, if we go by the Budget Speech. The Notification reads now:

After nearly two months, the Central government has corrected this fiasco.

By an amending Notification, the entry referred above has been substituted thus -

Notification 9/2013-ST dated 8 th May, 2013

Amendment in the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987 - reg.

Notification fiasco - Who is responsible for confusion? Madam Chairman, will you stop this 'smuggling' in Notifications?

On August 27, 2012 TIOL published the above article in its DDT column.

Notification Fiasco - Who is responsible - CBEC Clarifies. No Legal Force for Notifications in CBEC website

On September 14, 2012 TIOL published the above article in its DDT column.

CBEC TRU Dy. No.FTS - 147255/12 dated: September 13, 2012

No Education Cess from 01-07-2012!

On June 26, 2012 TIOL published the above article in its DDT column.

Order No 2/2012, Dated: June 29, 2012 CBEC Order on levy of education cess from July 1, 2012

No Service Tax from 1.7.2012?

On June 15, 2012 TIOL published the above article in its DDT column.

In response Govt came out with an Order on the same day i.e. June 15, 2012, rectifying the error in the law to make it effective from July 1, 2012 Order No 1/2012, Dated: June 15, 2012

Levy of Service Tax: Is CAG really a Chartered Accountant?

On June 7, 2012 TIOL published the above article in its 'The Cob(Web)' column.

In response Govt came out with Service Tax circular on June 19, 2012, conceding our line of interpretations and clarifying that the CAG is not a CA. Circular No. 159/10/2012-ST., Dated: June 19, 2012

Boiler Credit - CBEC Responds

BY Circular No. 964/07/2012-CX dated 02.04.2012, Board made some very important clarifications.

"structural components which are to be used essentially as a part of Boiler System would be classifiable as parts of Boiler only under Heading 8402 of the Tariff. It is further clarified that since these structural components are nothing but the parts and accessories of the Boiler, they would be covered by the definition of inputs under Rule 2(k)(iii) of the CENVAT Credit rules, 2004 (i.e. all goods for generation of electricity & steam)."

DDT did not make any adverse comments on this circular, when it was carried in DDT 1830 – 04.04.2012; in fact, we mentioned, "This is a beneficial clarification and let us hope the pending disputes would be settled".

In DDT 1831 - 09.04.2012, we asked a question whether this clarification would apply to goods 'other than' boilers?

Board issued another Circular - 966/09/ 2012-CX, Dated: May 18, 2012, in which it was clarified that while CENVAT Credit is available in respect of parts of Boiler, the same is not admissible in respect of the structural components used for laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods/ Boiler.

While reporting this in DDT 1861 - 21.05.2012, DDT observed, "It is beyond reason, why the Board should create so much confusion by issuing circulars. Can't they just be satisfied with their confusing rules and notifications? Should they complicate matters further by issuing clarifications on which further clarifications have to be issued within less than two months ?"

The CBEC responded pretty fast. Member (CX) in CBEC, Sreela Ghosh, spoke to DDT expressing her anguish at the harsh criticism, but patiently explained the need for the second circular.

The Director (CX) in the Board clarified the position as:

The relevant facts leading to the issuance of the circular no 964/07/2012-CX dated 2nd April 2012 are as follows:

++ The manufacturer of Boiler, clears the Boiler and it components/ parts/accessories after classifying them under tariff heading 8402 and pays the duty accordingly.

++ Amongst the parts cleared there are certain components which are used for construction of support to the Boiler. These too are classified by the Boiler manufacturer under the same heading.

++ The jurisdictional officers from where the Boiler and its parts/ components are being cleared are in agreement with the classification made.

++ However the officers in the jurisdiction where the CENVAT credit is being taken by the recipient of the Boiler and its parts, have been raising the issue with regard to the admissibility of CENVAT credit in respect of the certain components. The argument advanced by these officers is that since these structural components are not contributing to the functioning of the Boiler but are used for manufacture of supporting structure in respect of the Boiler, therefore they will be hit by the exclusion clause in the definition of input, read along with the decision of the tribunal in case of the Vandana Global [2010 –TIOL-624-CESTAT-DEL-LB]

After examination of the issue in consultation with the jurisdictional officers, the Board clarified that only those structural components which are essential for manufacture of the Boiler and are necessary for its operation shall merit classification under heading 8402. It was also clarified that since these structural components are essential to the functioning of the Boiler they shall be eligible for CENVAT Credit. The natural corollary to the assertion made is that those structural components which only provide support to the boiler (e.g. those used for laying foundation) will not be classifiable under heading 8402. Further as these structural components are used for construction of support to the Boiler the CENVAT credit shall not be admissible in respect of these items.

After issue of the Board circular dated 2 nd April 2012, certain doubts were expressed with regard to the scope of the clarification issued in the said circular. Accordingly a second circular vide 966/09/2012-CX dated 18th May 2012 was issued reiterating the position and indicating that admissibility of CENVAT credit on structural components used for construction of support to the Boiler are in accordance with the judicial pronouncements on the subject.

With regard to the issue of jurisdiction mentioned in the Article, it may be mentioned that it is a well settled law that goods are to be classified in the jurisdiction where they are manufactured and cleared and the jurisdiction in which they are received cannot alter the classification of the goods. The circulars in question do not attempt to clarify issue of the jurisdiction.

We are grateful to the Board for its prompt response and clarification. So, the position now is that structural components essential to the functioning of the Boiler are eligible for CENVAT Credit and classification of the product is not to be done at the receiving end. There can be absolutely no dispute with this view of the Board. A responsive tax administration commands respect and confidence.

1% Duty Goods - Now Entitled to Filing Quarterly Returns - Board Corrects error pointed out by DDT

In DDT 1830 – 04-04-2012, we pointed out;

According to (the fourth) proviso in Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002,

Provided also that, where an assessee is availing the exemption notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 1/2011- Central Excise, dated the 1st March, 2011, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, section 3, sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 116(E) dated the 1st March, 2011 and does not manufacture any other excisable goods other than those specified in the said notification, he shall file a quarterly return in the form specified by notification by the Board, of production and removal of goods and other relevant particulars, within ten days after the close of the quarter to which the return relates.

Now that certain items like coal and fertilizers are covered under Notification No 12/2012 CE, the above proviso requires amendment. Last week they corrected the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, but they failed to notice that Central Excise Rules also require a correction.

It took the Board just a fortnight to correct this mistake. The Proviso has been amended to provide for quarterly return for the 1% duty items covered under Notification No. 12/2012. We thank the Board for the quick response, thereby avoiding unwanted litigation and trouble. It does not give us any pleasure in pointing out the mistakes of the babus, though some of them get very angry; but it does give us tremendous happiness when Board realizes its mistakes and carry out corrections. Notification No. 23/2012 - CX., (N.T.), Dated: April 18, 2012

PLEASE refer to DDT 1476–28.10.2010 , wherein we pointed out that Notification No. 26/2010 – Service Tax dated 22.06.2010, was issued under the wrong Section. We had pointed out that the Notification was issued under clause (aa) of sub-section (2) of section 94 while it should have been issued under Section 93(1) of the Finance Act.

Notification No. 26/2010 – Service Tax Dated June 22, 2010 reads as:

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (aa) of sub-section (2) of section 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the services referred to in clause (zzzo) of sub-section (105) of section 65 of Finance Act, 1994 from so much of service tax as is in excess of,-

(a) ten percent of the gross value of the ticket or rupees one hundred per journey, whichever is less, for passengers travelling in any class, within India;

(b) ten percent of the gross value of the ticket or rupees five hundred per journey, whichever is less, for passengers embarking in India for an international journey in economy class:

Provided that this exemption shall not apply xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For a recap, Section 94 empowers the Government to make Rules, while Section 93 empowers the Government to issue exemption Notifications.

DDT asked, “Will CBEC make a correction before some Tribunal Bench holds the notification as invalid as issued under a wrong Section of the ACT?”

We are happy to report that the Government has realised the mistake and issued a corrigendum. The Corrigendum reads as,

“for “clause (aa) of sub-section (2) of section 94”,  read “sub-section (1) of section 93 read with clause (aa) of sub-section (2) of section 94”.

Now why to read clause (aa) of sub-section (2) of section 94 ? This clause empowers the Government to make rules for determination of amount and value of taxable service. This was an exemption notification and there was no Rules Notified.

Will the Board issue another corrigendum? It is really unfortunate that notifications are issued so callously.

CBEC Corrigendum, Dated 23.11.2010

Custodial Death in Malda Customs – NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION awards interim relief of One Lakh Rupees based on TIOL Reports

Please refer to our stories:

Malda custodial death : FM finds gaping holes in internal report & orders independent probe

Kolkata Customs Custodial Death - FM deprecates TIOL-DDT 255

WE had reported about the sad story of a young man who died in the custody of the Customs. This man was selected by the Staff Selection Commission for appointment as Inspector in the very Department. Unknown to us, the National Human Rights Commission had taken up the matter based on our reports and issued a Notice to the Revenue Department.

The Revenue replied that,

No FIR has been lodged against Custom officers nor there is any evidence regarding torture or harassment by Custom officers during custody of the deceased, and therefore, Custom officers cannot be held responsible for the un-natural death of the deceased.

The Govt. after getting proper inquiry conducted in the matter has issued Warning' to the concerned officials as they were found having acted in a negligent manner and failing to provide safe custody to the deceased, and not on account of any harassment or torture in custody to the deceased. Nothing has been established on record to prove any malafide on their part. As such, there is no ground to indicate that the concerned officials violated the human rights of the deceased in any manner.

The Commission did not agree and observed,

It is a clear case of violation of human rights of the deceased who was a young man of 30 years and died in the state custody. Secretary, Deptt. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India is recommended to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the next of kin of the deceased as damages /interim, relief u/s 18(a)(i) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The proof of payment be sent to the Commission within six weeks.

The Commission's Registry very kindly sent us a copy of the Order recommending compensation in Case No. : 400/25/2005-2006 .

It is a great reward for all of us in TIOL that due to our efforts, some small compensation is awarded to the poor father who lost his precious son. We hope the Revenue Department will pay up this small compensation without further prolonging the litigation.

WHEN the USA's Forbes magazine ranked India 23rd on a scale of 'Tax Misery Index' it had indeed confounded and hurt many of us but not the policy-making netizens in North Block! What evidences such a perception of common taxpayers is the introduction of New TDS Regime which has been rolled out not only without proper homework but also sans full Board approval! Worse, the Controller of Govt Accounts is also not aware of ...

New TDS Regime - A grand fiasco for CBDT; Is outgoing FM 'aware' of policy change, richly contributing to 'Tax Misery Index'!

ANYBODY who deals in export and import of goods, is bound to be familiar with one IT term - EDI (the Electronic Data Interchange) which CBEC is very proud of. EDI is the epicentre around which all Customs-related activities revolve today. Filing of bill of entry or shipping bill or drawback claims or refund - you name the activity, and the EDI comes into the picture. There are different cells which handle different sets of these customs works. This entails allotment of password to officials working there. And, going by the IT Security Protocol, the onus to maintain the secrecy of the password lies with individual officers. However, how careless and perfunctory these officials can afford to be, is a common site in virtually all Customs ports and Custom Houses across the country. A visitor from the private sector who visits the clearance zone and understands the deleterious fall-out of sharing of password gets horrified when he sees how office boys of CHAs use the Customs officials' passwords to the EDI at their own will. None cares as long as a fraud is not reported, and the lucre keeps swelling in concealed pockets of these officials, collecting a 'cut' for such quick facilitation of cargo!

Yet another EDI-based drawback fraud detected; CBEC suspends 31 officers but none from Group 'A' so far!

Frauds resulting from failure to maintain password security - reg Instruction

Nearly two years ago TIOL edit team had highlighted the practical difficulties faced by the consignors/consignees who are liable to pay service tax on Goods transport agency service. In order to avail the benefit of the 75% abatement, they had to ensure that the goods transport agency did not avail cenvat credit on the inputs or capital goods. It was suggested that the tax rate on this service should be reduced unconditionally by extending the 75% abatement without any strings attached. Read Story

TIOL is happy to report that in this year’s budget, Notification 13/2008 dated 1.3.2008, has been issued to extend the benefit of 75% abatement without imposing any conditions.

TIOL-DDT 621 25.05.2007, mentioned about an inadvertent omission which made jute twine dutiable all of a sudden. Extracts from the DDT.

This is a classic example of how unintended actions can be disastrous to the trade and industry. Jute goods have been enjoying exemption for quite some time and twine is no exception. To eliminate the hassles of even exemptions, the Tariff rate itself is made NIL in the Central Excise Tariff. But in the maze of amendments to the Central Excise Tariff from 6 digit to 8 digit and consequential amendments to the related exemption Notifications, a small error is now snowballing into huge demands and going to be another gold mine for the consultants.

We are very happy to report that the Government has very graciously understood the problem and has stopped the big forest fire. Now they have issued a notification whereby Twine of jute or other textile bastfibres of heading 5303, is exempted from the whole of the duty.

This brings a lot of cheer to the harassed jute manufacturers of Kolkotta and other places. Reports have reached us that after seeing our flash yesterday, dancing assessees have gone to Central Excise offices and distributed sweets.

The CBEC deserves all praise for correcting this inadvertent lapse, but there is another problem.

NOTIFICATION NO. 28/2007-Cex., Dated: June 15, 2007

See detailed report in TIOL-DDT 638 19.06.2007

In our Budget articles, we had carried a story Amendment to Rule 21 of CE Rules - Half done !

wherein it was pointed out that

In the second and third provisos, in fact two words need to be substituted in each proviso, for upper and lower limits, but only one word of the revised upper limit has been substituted. So now there is overlap of powers between the Superintendent , Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner. Therefore there is a need to substitute " one thousand" in second proviso to "ten thousand" and in the third proviso, "two thousand five hundred" needs to be replaced with "one lakh rupees".

We are happy to report that the Government has corrected the mistake by issuing the corrigendum below:

CORRIGENDUM to Notification No. 8/2007 dated the 15th March, 2007

We carried a detailed well-researched commentary on how unsafe are the public deposits with Margadarsi Financiers run by media baron Ramoji Rao, HUF? No doubt, Mr Ramoji Rao enjoys unmatched creditworthiness but the issue was more of public interests and related to infraction of laid down norms. How safe are public deposits with press baron Ramoji Rao, HUF? Will MoF or RBI answer this question, please?

Kudos to the MoF for taking note of our suggestions and asking RBI to act. And RBI has acted but modestly. It needs to be more aggressive, given the quantum of public deposits involved.

RBI finally asks Margadarsi Financiers to stop accepting public deposits; funds to be transferred to escrow account to refund depositors

We carried a series of reports about the e-payment facility started by the CBEC. In our reports we commented if the Board wants to make e-payment mandatory, why can't it issue a notification publicly instead of making the DGST write DO letters? Or is the DGST an independent authority that it decides for the Board? Later, we also raised several questions on the mandatory e-payment and even conducted quick survey in the major cities, to give the Board the quickest feedback possible. We had also raised a question whether the limit of Rs. 50 Lakhs was for cash payment only or whether it includes payment from Cenvat credit too.

Our reports are as follows: EASIEST Electronic Accounting System in Central Excise & Service Tax Service Tax - mandatory e-payment of Service Tax for major assessees - Board keeps it a top secret E payment of Service Tax mandatory E-payment of Service Tax - we are as ignorant as you are. Our Netizen reporters - assessees report for TIOL

In response the Board came out with proper clarifications and even advised the field formations not to initiate penal action against the assessees for not making e payments. E payment of Service Tax - no penalty please Rs.50Lkahs limit includes payment from cenvat credit

Two central excise Inspectors were killed and many other were injured in the Mumbai serial blasts on July 11, 2006. TIOL extensively reported and commented on the diabolic act of terror. We also recommended for a fair relief package for the victims. Our reports are as follows:

Headcount of killed & injured continues in Mumbai I-T, Customs & Excise offices but Revenue Boards yet to react to the tragedy

Two central excise Inspectors were killed and many other were injured in the Mumbai serial blasts on July 11, 2006. TIOL extensively reported and commented on the diabolic act of terror. We also recommended for a fair relief package for the victims. Our reports are as follows:

Headcount of killed & injured continues in Mumbai I-T, Customs & Excise offices but Revenue Boards yet to react to the tragedy Bid to blast holes in buoyant economy Another calamity strikes Mumbaikars The blasted officers – will the Board help? The paper chase (special Column Article),
The paper chase (TIOL-DDT 407) Too little Mr PC

In response to our campaign the large hearted Finance Minister has done the needful. See reactions: Compassionate PC - Blast victims' wives to get job FM grants Rs 5 lakh ex gratia to families of Central Excise Inspectors killed in Mumbai blasts but more needs to be done All India Federation of Central Excise Executive Offiers letter of thanks to FM (pdf file)

In response to our remarks, the Govt has not only restored the exemption but also issued 11C Notification, exempting it for the interim period.
SEE DDT370

Now Government has amended the Notification to rectify the lapse pointed out by TIOL
SEE the DDT370

We are happy to report that the Government has indeed come out with a clarification that Service Tax is not proposed to be levied on use of cards in ATMs.
SEE the DDT

• SELECTION OF MEMBERS FOR REVENUE BOARDS : YOU SHOW ME THE FACE, I SHOW YOU THE RULE!
• RECRUITMENT IN REVENUE BOARDS : A CASE OF LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR FM!
• FM FINALLY DOES IT FOR SELECTION OF MEMBERS BUT ALSO NEEDS TO DO ADMN REVAMP AT BOARD-LEVEL!
• ONE YEAR TENURE FOR BOARD MEMBERS?

President of India has finally done it. The Govt has notified the Recruitment Rules for Chairmen and Members of both the Revenue Boards broadly along the lines suggested by TIOL experts.SEE the NEWS

After our news FM himself took action SEE the RAISINA

After out report (DDT TIOL-DDT 256) the Board issued the said Draft circular (F.NO.341/43/2005-TRU) on advertising.

Pursuant to the special report: "Has Kolkata Customs turned a 'killer'?", the editorial "Malda custodial death : FM finds gaping holes in internal report & orders independent probe" along with the views of Dr G Sreekumar Menon and Justice R K Abichandani, President, CESTAT, the Finance Ministry issued a letter dated November 22nd 2005 (F.No. 394/100/2005-CUS(AS)),reminding all the officers and field formation the ground rules for taking a person in custody. SEE THE LETTER.

Also read DDT No. 255 in this regard dated December 06, 2005

The CBDT issued a fresh instruction, albeit hiking the monetary limit for filing appeal before Tribunal, HCs & SC but making it clear that if a law point is involved and the tax effect is less than Rs one lakh, appeal must be filed.
SEE THE INSTRUCTION

The STANDING COMMITTEE OF FINANCE BRANCH has asked our Panel of Experts for valuation views and suggestions on the provisions of the Bill in the form of a memorandum - LOK SABHA LETTER dated September 8, 2005

The CBEC conceded our points and has issued instructions overruling DGST and simplifying the procedure. - CBEC letter in F.No.354/106/2005-TRU dated 8.8.2005
READ the DDT