23 04 2015
Thursday
FINANCE Minister Arun Jaitley hopes that the Constitution Amendment Bill for introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) would be passed in the current session of Parliament as there is a broad consensus among states on the issue. He was with the empowered committee of State Finance Ministers today. The Committee Chairman also expressed the same view as reservations regarding producing and consuming states have been sorted out. He saw no difficulty in more than 50 per cent of the States passing the Bill and he hoped that GST can come into force on 1st April 2016 or even before.
Well you have 11 months and these are the 11 minimum things you have to do before implementation.
1. Pass the Bill in both the Houses of Parliament.
2. Pass the bill in at least 15 States.
3. Draft a model uniform legislation for all States, which have to be passed by State legislatures.
4. Decide a rate and threshold limit.
5. Frame common rules, especially rules for place of supply.
6. Put in place a proper adjudication and appellate mechanism.
7. Launch a powerful fully tested IT system (GST NET) with all the States linked properly.
8. Launch a user-friendly web site.
9. Train the huge army of Central Excise and Commercial taxes employees to understand the tax and adapt to its concepts.
10. Constitute the GST Council
11. Constitute a high power monitoring and implementation wing to clarify doubts, assist the taxpayers and deal with litigation on the validity of the legislations and other taxing issues.
Let us hope they will be able to and the taxpayers should be ready for the chaos ahead.
The Truck Stops Here.
Anti Dumping Duty on Barium Carbonate - Yet another Resurrection
THE Government had imposed provisional anti dumping duty on Barium Carbonate originating in, or exported from, People's Republic of China, vide Notification No. 37/2010-Customs, dated the 23rd March, 2010. This Notification very clearly stated that the anti dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be effective up to and inclusive of the 22nd day of September 2010.
In September 2010, they forgot to extend it, but woke up five months later and issued a definitive anti dumping notification (No. 6/2011-Cus dated 7.2.2011) with retrospective effect from the date of imposition of the provisional antidumping duty that is 23.3.2010.
Even this extended resurrected imposition expired on 23.3.2015 and as usual they could not extend it.
Now after a month, they have retrospectively extended it by another year till 22nd day of March, 2016.
Finance Minister Jaitley promises that there would be no retrospective imposition of tax; maybe he is not aware of this regular retro illegality in his CBEC.
Notification No.15/2015-Customs (ADD)., Dated: April 22 2015
And another
PROVISIONAL Anti Dumping Duty on imports of Acetone originating in, or exported from, Thailand and Japan, was imposed by Notification No. 45/2010 - Cus dated 9th April 2010. This Notification very clearly mentioned that the Anti Dumping Duty imposed under this notification shall be effective up to and inclusive of October 8, 2010 .
So the notification expired on 9th October, 2010.The Board was in deep slumber for six months.
They woke up in April 2011 and imposed definitive anti dumping duty on these goods for a period of five years, but from the date of provisional anti dumping, that is 9th April, 2010. (Notification No. 36/2011-Cus dated 18.04.2011)
Even this extended resurrected imposition expired on 09.04.2015 and as usual they could not extend it.
Now, after two weeks, they have retrospectively extended it by another year till 8th day of April, 2016.
Notification No.16/2015-Customs (ADD)., Dated: April 22 2015
Babus can't travel by Premium Trains
REFERENCES have been received seeking clarification regarding entitlement of Central Government servants to travel by "Premium Trains", being run by the Indian Railways, while on Official Duty/Tour/Training/Transfer etc.
The Department of Expenditure in the Ministry of Finance has clarified that travel by Premium Trains by Central Government servants on Official Duty/Tour/Training/Transfer etc. is not allowed and therefore, the fare charged for Premium Trains by the Indian Railways for the journey performed by Premium Trains shall not be reimbursable. In cases where journey on Official Duty/Tour/Training/Transfer etc. has already been performed by Premium Trains, the amount reimbursed shall be restricted to the admissible normal fare for the entitled class of train travel or the actual fare paid, whichever is less.
Earlier the DoPT had clarified that travel by Premium Trains is not permissible on LTC. (DDT 2527 29 01 2015)
Dept of Expenditure Office Memorandum No.19046/2/2008-E.IV., Dated: April 22, 2015
Theft of Gold from Customs Office - Two Officers Suspended
DDT 2580-20.04.2015 reported about the theft of 16 kgs of seized gold from the Customs office in Tiruchirapalli.
It is heard that a Superintendent and an Inspector have been suspended by the Commissioner. It is also heard that the case is referred to the CBI.
MAT on FIIs - Not for DTAA countries?
NEWSPAPERS have reported that MoS Jayant Sinha, Revenue secretary Shaktikanta Das and CBDT Chairperson Anita Kapur told the FIIs in an international conference call that they can avail the double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA) for relief from the minimum alternate tax (MAT) demand they are facing in India. There was no official clarification till late in the evening.
Jurisprudentiol-Recent Supreme Court Judgements
Central Excise - Valuation - value of administrative overheads, bonus, gratuity, interest, conversion charges and depreciation charges, includible - Extended period not applicable as no intentional misdeclaration with the purpose to avoid payment of correct excise duty: CESTAT vide its common order dated 13.02.2004 allowed the appeals of the assessee on the ground that the larger period of limitation was not invocable against the assessee and accordingly set aside the demands of duty on them. It was also held that the cost accountants were the experts authorized by the law to do the costing of production of the goods and their duly certified statements/ reports relating to such costing were legally authentic enough to be acted upon by their clients and any error found in such certificates would not be a valid ground for any authority to proceed against the clients criminally or quasi-criminally.
The Supreme Court noted that earlier there was some ambiguity and it was not clear as to whether cost of labour, bonus, etc., is to be included while arriving at the cost of captive consumption of this item. This was clarified only vide circular dated 30.10.1996 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. It, therefore, cannot be said that the respondents-companies made intentional misdeclaration with the purpose to avoid payment of correct excise duty. The Supreme Court found that the CESTAT was right in holding that extended period of limitation would not be applicable in the present case.
Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs Asarwa Mills And Ors- 2015-TIOL-82-SC-CX
Central Excise - North East exemption for tobacco withdrawn retrospectively - Retrospective withdrawal already upheld by Supreme Court - High Court order not valid: Government of India vide Memorandum dated 24.12.1997 unveiled a new Industrial policy for the North Eastern Region. In the said policy, in order to give stimulation to the development of Industrial infrastructure in the North Eastern Region, the said region was made tax free zone for a period of ten years giving incentives to those who wanted to establish their industries in the region. Pursuant thereto a Notification was issued on 8.7.1999 granting exemption on goods cleared from units located in growth centers and integrated infrastructure centres. On 31.12.1999, another Notification was issued whereby exemption of Central Excise was withdrawn in respect of goods under Chapter 21.06 (Pan Masala) and Chapter 24 (tobacco and tobacco substitutes), including cigarettes chewing tobacco etc.
The High Court has held that principle of promissory estoppel shall apply and once a promise was given by the Union of India to give the assurance that no such duty would be charged, for a period of 10 years, it was not open for the Union of India to withdraw the same. During the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court in R.C. Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Union of India and Another - 2005-TIOL-115-SC-CX had upheld the validity of retrospective withdrawal of exemption - so, the High Court order is no more valid.
Please see Union of India Vs Dharampal Satyapal Ltd and Ors- 2015-TIOL-81-SC-CX
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in |
Download PDF
