TIOL-DDT 2237
25.11.2013
Monday

'I was a Commissioner in Income Tax. An ordinary IT inspector normally makes Rs 1 crore in a year. As Commissioner, I could have made crores and travel in a car fitted with beacon light. But I left service, and decided to serve the nation' - Aam Aadmi Party Chief and former Income Tax Additional Commissioner Arvind Kejriwal is said to have remarked in an interview.

First of all Arvind Kejriwal was never a Commissioner - he left the job as an Additional Commissioner and even today his batch-mates have not become Commissioners. Why then should he claim to have been a Commissioner? Incidentally his wife still works in the Income Tax Department. Does he allege that she also earns crores and travels in car with beacons?

The IRS Association has conveyed its strong anguish and hurt at his remarks, which cast aspersion on the whole of the Department including every employee. The Association reminds him that no department or organization is corrupt or honest; it is the individuals of the department or organization who may be so. The IRS Association strongly feels that corruption, whether in the Income-tax Department, or any other organisation or in politics should be eliminated, but does not support defaming and maligning the entire personnel of a Department.

The Association informs that the Income-tax Department is a front line Department of the Government of India who, by the efforts of its personnel and aid of modern technology, has not only increased Revenue mobilization manifold for the Nation, but also introduced transparency to a great extent for better governance. The excellence of its computerization modules have been recognized and honoured with various national awards. The Indian Revenue Service is, therefore one of the best Central Services in the country today. Therefore, the Association feels that the statements being made by Arvind Kejriwal are unnecessarily damaging the image of this fine service.

IRS Association Letter to Arvind Kejriwal

No duty free liquor for minors in Cochin Customs

THE Cochin Customs Commissioner has issued a 'Trade Facility' No. 23/2013 wherein he states/informs/directs/warns that:

Baggage Rules,1998 permit import of alcoholic liquor or wine not in excess of 2 litres by eligible passenger subject to the specified overall duty free allowance. The provisions of Section 15A of the Kerala Abkari Act (1 of 1077) specify that no person under the age of 18 years shall consume or use any alcoholic liquor, while Section 15B of the said Act prohibits sale or delivery of alcoholic liquor to persons under the age of 18 years. Therefore, it follows that liquor is not a bonafide baggage item for passengers who are persons below the age as specified in Sections 15A&15B of the Kerala Abkari Act. Law of the land also prohibits any such sale of alcoholic beverages to persons below the specified age through any outlets including Duty free shops (DFS).

Alcoholic beverages cannot be imported by passengers who are below the age specified in Section 15A& 15 B of the Kerala Abkari Act through the International Airport and any such imports shall be liable for confiscation. In view of the above-mentioned provisions of law, passengers below the specified age would not be eligible to purchase alcoholic beverages from the Duty Free Shops in the International Airport. It is also brought to the notice of all concerned that the existing provisions of Baggage Rules allow duty free clearance of liquor upto 2 litres per eligible passenger. Hence, import of liquor by such eligible passengers above the said limit of 2 litres shall be only on collection of applicable duties.

Any instances of deviation of above directions will be viewed seriously and would invite penal action.

Why is this called a Trade Facility? What is the facility here?

Now is there no restriction on women? Most Indian women don't drink, but an Indian woman returning from a foreign country is allowed to bring in two litres duty free.

And is this restriction imposed in Cochin through a facility applicable only in Cochin? What about other airports?

Please also see Duty-free liquor for children?

Cochin Customs Trade Facility No.23/2013-Cus, Dated: August 08, 2013

Training Programme on 'Effective Representation before ITAT'

THE Income Tax Department's "National Academy of Direct Taxes", NADT is organising a training programme on "Effective Representation before ITAT" to Commissioners, Additional Commissioners and Joint Commissioners.

The objective of the training programme is to enhance competency and capacity building in this significant area. The Course Contents include tax jurisprudence, interpretation of statutes, law of evidence, advocacy skills and other ancillary aspects.

The National Academy of Customs Excise and Narcotics (NACEN) should also think of some such course, but before that, they should have a course on adjudication and 'Speaking Orders' - more than half the officers do not know what a speaking order is.

F.No.NADT/P&R/Effective Repn/2013-14, Dated: November 21, 2013

Painting of Motor Vehicle parts is a part of manufacturing activity as per Note to Section XVII of CETA, 1985 - ST not leviable under BAS  

REVENUE is demanding service tax in respect of the activity of painting of motor vehicle parts.

The Commissioner (A) did not agree with this demand and so the Revenue is before the CESTAT. The year is 2008.

The appeal was heard recently.

The Bench noted that the process undertaken by the respondent is a part of the manufacturing activity of motor vehicles which were cleared on payment of duty.

The CESTAT further observed -

"4. … we find that as per Note to Section XVII of the Central Excise Tariff conversion of an article which is incomplete or unfinished but having the essential character of the complete or finished article, into complete or finished article shall amount to manufacture."

Holding that there is no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (A), the Revenue appeal was dismissed.

See 2013-TIOL-1753-CESTAT-MUM

Jurisprudentiol - Tuesday's cases

Service Tax

Appellant availing CENVAT credit in respect of common inputs and input services and using same in processing of goods, some of which were cleared on payment of Service Tax under BAS and some under benefit of notification 8/2005-ST - appellant prima facie liable to pay 6%/8% of price of exempted services as per provisions of Rule 6 of CCR - Pre-deposit ordered: CESTAT

THE applicants are not disputing the fact that part of the processed goods are cleared at nil rate of Service Tax by availing the benefit of exemption. It is also not disputed by the applicant, that credit has been availed in respect of the common inputs as well as input services, which are used in the processing of exempted as well as the processed goods on which the Service Tax has been paid. In view of this, prima facie the applicant has not made out a case for waiver of service tax. During the arguments the applicants submitted that the demand for the normal period comes to approximately Rs.12 lakhs. Ordered a pre-deposit of Rs.12 lakhs.

Income Tax

Whether legal heir is automatically deemed to be assessee upon death of original assessee - NO: ITAT

THE assessee is the legal heir and representative of the original assessee who died during the pendency of assessment. The original assessee during his life time furnished inaccurate particulars in his return. During the pending assessment proceeding, the legal heir of the assessee discovered that he was never impleaded and brought on records. Upon the said observation the assessee filed a rectification application before the AO intimating that original assessee had expired and to make the changes by impleading him and bringing on records.

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether penalty can be levied on the deceased assessee, when the legal heir was never brought on record; Whether the penalty can be levied on legal heirs when inaccurate return of income was filed by the deceased during his life time and Whether the LR is automatically deemed to be the assessee upon the death of the original assessee. And the verdict goes in favour of the assessee.

Central Excise

Merely because various machinery, equipment, appliances and parts have been assembled at site to set up Oxygen Plant and such plant being an immovable property, it will be preposterous to deny CENVAT credit on this individual machinery/equipment or appliances - Appeal allowed: CESTAT

THE appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely, HR Coils and sponge iron falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff. They entered into a contract with M/s Inox Air Products Ltd. for setting up of an Oxygen Plant. As per the arrangement, certain equipments were received by the appellants and certain equipments were procured by M/s Inox Air Products Ltd. in the name of the appellant and the Oxygen Plant was set up by M/s Inox Air Products Ltd., which was further leased to the appellant.

The Revenue was of the view that the appellant is not eligible for capital goods credit on the machinery/equipment which have gone in the fabrication of the plant since the plant is an immovable structure and not excisable and since no duty has been paid on the plant, the credit is not admissible.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a Nice Day

Mail your comments to   vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com