10 06 2015
Wednesday
THE Customs Tariff is constantly under challenge with technological progress. Fifteen years ago nobody could have imagined that a telephone could also be an audio/video player, a camera, a video recorder, a diary, a road map and so on... For Customs tariff, do you classify it as a phone? And some products become obsolete. Is there any need for a heading for video cassette player now?
The HSN is the ultimate in tariff classification and it is supposed to contain a heading for every item in the world. But technology and ingenuity of the human mind do not wait for Customs officers gathered in Brussels to decide classification. Mind boggling and unimaginable products beyond the comprehension of the Tariff makers are hitting the market everyday. The HS has to be kept up to date in the light of changes in technology or in patterns of international trade. The Harmonized System Committee (HSC), at its 55th session in March 2015, examined the Harmonized System classification of a wide range of products. The classification decisions taken at the Session have now been published. These decisions comprise Classification Rulings, as well as the Amendments to the Explanatory Notes and to the Compendium of Classification Opinions.
Smartwatches are effectively wearable computers. The new HSN classification and description for this is:
8517.62: Wrist wearable device ("smart watch"): a battery-operated device in the form of a wrist-watch, incorporating a touch-sensitive, active-matrix organic light-emitting diode (AMOLED) display, a central processing unit (CPU), random-access memory, a flash memory, a radio transceiver, an electronic watch module, a motion sensor (accelerometer), agyro-sensor, a digital camera module with auto focus, a speaker and two microphones. The radio transceiver utilizes an open wireless technology standard (Bluetooth®), which enables the device to communicate wirelessly with certain mobile devices, such as mobile telephones for cellular networks or tablet computers. The device performs the following functions independently of any other device: recording and reproducing sound; taking and recording photos and videos; displaying time and information embedded in the watch module; measuring and displaying step counts and heart rates.
When “paired” with a host device, additional features are available to the wearer, including: making and receiving calls over the paired device; using voice commands to control the paired device (e.g., to send messages, take photos, set an alarm and check a weather forecast or schedules); displaying notifications from the paired device; playing music stored in the host device; performing functions of timekeeping instruments; measuring and displaying certain data, e.g., step counts, heart rates and calorie consumption; downloading (over the paired device) and running applications suitable to be used on the device.
Where does the drone fly?
A "drone" is a remote-controlled four-rotor helicopter, also called “quadcopter”, with an integrated digital camera (dimensions: 29 cm x 29cm x 18 cm; weight : 1,160 grams),
- a 5.8 GHz remote controller,
- a 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi range extender and
- a "smartphone" mount.
The helicopter is controlled via levers on the supplied remote control. The remote control comes equipped with a mount for a "smartphone" so the operator can use the phone screen to view "streaming" video images via Wi-Fi signal. The operator can take both videos (1080p HD) and still images (14 MP). The operator uses a separate program ("app") from the manufacturer to control the camera via the smartphone. The range of the supplied Wi-Fi range extender is approximately 300 meters and flying time is approximately 25 minutes before the battery must be recharged.
This is to be classified in 8525.80.
Some of the other classifications decisions are on motor vehicles, infant seat cum rocking chair, Stainless steel vacuum flask, two-seat car, etc.
What is 40% of 12.36%? - CBEC concedes two decimal places
CBEC in its Circular No. 184/2015-S.T, dated 03.06.2015 clarified that 40% of 12.36 is 4.9%. DDT 2614 08 06 2015 expressed a doubt that arithmetically it might be slightly inaccurate as 40% of 12.36 is 4.944. Now the Board has issued a Press Release clarifying that it is 4.94%. We are grateful to the Board for this clarification, but it would have been more accurate if they had accepted the third decimal place also and conceded that it is 4.944 and not 4.94.
Board also clarifies that Restaurants, eating-joints or messes which do not have the facility of air-conditioning or central air-heating in any part of the establishment are exempt from service tax. But who had this doubt? And this was any way clarified in the above mentioned Circular.
Without wasting its time in useless clarifications, why can't the Board clarify on what to do with the credit balance of education cess?
Customs - Appointment of common adjudicating authority - Board Issues Clarifications
BY Notification No 60/2015 -Customs (N.T.), dated 04.06.2015 the power to appoint common adjudicating authority in cases investigated by DRI upto the level of Commissioner of Customs have been delegated to Principal Director General of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in terms of section 152 of the Customs Act, 1962. Board says, this notification was issued in the interest of expediting decision making with resultant benefits to both trade and revenue in terms of faster settlement of outstanding disputes.
In this regard, the Board has prescribed the following guidelines for Principal DG, DRI:
(a) The following cases initiated by DRI shall be assigned to Additional Director General (Adjudication), DRI:
(i) Cases involving duty of Rs.5 crores and above;
(ii) Group of cases on identical issues involving aggregate duty of Rs.5 crores or more;
(iii) Cases involving seizure value of Rs.5 crores or more;
(iv) Cases of over-valuation irrespective of value involved; and
(v) Existing DRI cases with erstwhile Commissioner (Adjudication).
(b) Cases other than at (a) above involving more than one Customs Commissionerate would be assigned to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs on the basis of the maximum duty evaded;
(c) Cases other than at (a) above involving a single Customs Commissionerate would be assigned to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs;
(d) Non-DRI cases pending with erstwhile Commissioner (Adjudication) would be assigned to Additional Director General (Adjudication), DRI;
(e) Past DRI cases pending for adjudication with jurisdictional Commissioners of Customs would continue with these officers;
(f) Remand cases would be decided by the original adjudicating authority.
CBEC Circular No.18/2015-Cus, Dated: June 09, 2015
CE - Centralised Registration for aluminium roofing panels manufacturers
CBEC has exempted manufacturing unit engaged in the manufacture of aluminium roofing panels falling under tariff item 7610 90 10 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, from requirement of Registration of every unit subject to the conditions that:
1. such roofing panels are consumed at the site of manufacture for execution of the project and
2. the manufacturer of such goods has a centralised billing or accounting system in respect of such goods manufactured by different manufacturing units and
3. opts for registering only the premises or office from where such centralised billing or accounting is done.
Interestingly, the corollary to this would be that CE duty, if any, would be payable by the registered manufacturer wherefrom the centralised billing or accounting is done. Is this notification doing away with jurisdictional issues when demands are required to be raised for this activity? If the Board comes out with a clarification, it would certainly be welcomed.
Notification No. 17/2015-Central Excise (N.T.), Dated: June 08, 2015
Income Tax - Condonation of delay in filing refund claim and claim of carry forward of losses
CBDT has issued guidelines on the conditions for condonation and the procedure to be followed for condonation of delay in filing returns claiming refund and returns claiming carry forward of loss and set-off.
1. The Principal Commissioners of Income-tax/Commissioners of Income-tax (Pr.CsIT/CsIT) shall be vested with the powers of acceptance/rejection of such application/claims if the amount of such claims is not more than Rs.10 lakhs for any one assessment year. The Principal Chief Commissioners of Income-tax/Chief Commissioners of Income-tax (Pr.CCsIT/CCsIT) shall be vested with the powers of acceptance/rejection of such application/claims if the amount of such claims exceeds Rs.10 lakhs but is not more than Rs.50 lakhs for any one assessment year. The applications/claims for amount exceeding Rs.50 lakhs shall be considered by the Board.
2. No condonation application for claim of refund/loss shall be entertained beyond six years from the end of the assessment year for which such application/claim is made.
3. In a case where refund claim has arisen consequent to Court order, the period for which any such proceedings were pending before any Court of Law shall be ignored.
4. The Board reserves the power to examine any grievance arising out of an order passed or not passed by the authorities mentioned above and issue suitable directions to them for proper implementation of this Circular. However, no review of or appeal against the orders of such authorities would be entertained by the Board.
CBDT Circular No. 09/2015., Dated: June 09, 2015
TPL wants Directors
TAX Policy and Legislation (TPL) Division, CBDT wants to fill up urgently vacancies of Director/Deputy Secretary in the TPL. IRS officers of the rank of Addl. CIT/Jt. CIT (1998 batch onward) are eligible. They want the applications by 19th June 2015.
Maybe there are not many takers for the prestigious posts in TPL.
CBDT F.No. 134/18/2015-TPL., Dated: June 09, 2015
FTP - Extension of authorisation - Composition of fee - Correction
BY Public Notice No. 16 dated 4.6.2015 amendments were made in the Hand Book of Procedure. Certain typographical errors in the notification are now corrected. For example, the composition fee payable is 0.5% per month. This per month was missing in the earlier notification. CBEC seems to be a guiding star for DGFT.
New Benches of CESTAT - Delhi Benches will become redundant?
NEW Benches of CESTAT are proposed at Hyderabad, Allahabad and Chandigarh. While the Hyderabad Bench may have jurisdiction over the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Allahabad may cover Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The Chandigarh Bench may have jurisdiction over Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and J&K. Then what is left for Delhi? The city of Delhi and the States of Rajasthan, MP and Chattisgarh, from where very few cases come to the Tribunal. And Delhi has five Benches. So, it may result in too many benches with too few cases for Del hi while Allahabad and Chandigarh will inherit a huge pendency and burdened with too many cases.
The CESTAT Bar Association has sent a representation to the Finance Minister in this regard.
President of the Association, Mr. RK Jain in his letter requests the Finance Minister that the jurisdiction of the Delhi Benches should not be not be confined to city of Delhi, but should extend to NCR. He submits,
This will not only be equitable and practical but will also provide sufficient work for 5 Benches of CESTAT at New Delhi. If trade and industry of Ghaziabad and Noida is made to travel to Allahabad for just getting their Appeals decided by a Tax Tribunal, it would not only be expensive but strenuous, as compared to the present arrangement of hearing of their Tax Appeals at New Delhi, in close vicinity to their places. Similar is the position of Tax Payers in Faridabad and Gurgaon.
The Jurisdiction of Delhi Benches of the CESTAT may also be extended to the NCR. This will not only redress the grievance of the bar but also the Trade & Industry will be happy to have justice at their doorstep.
The large numbers of matters are likely to be transferred from CESTAT, New Delhi to Allahabad Bench and Chandigarh Bench. These new Benches thus would inherit huge pendency right from the initial days and it would not be prudent for their smooth functioning. Moreover, in most of such cases, the parties have already engaged lawyers at New Delhi, it would be ideal that cases in which Vakalatnama is already filed by a local lawyer at Delhi, these cases be retained at Delhi, if the appellant opts so. This will also save the trade and industry from the additional burden of re-engaging a new lawyer at the location of new Bench.
The Government is committed to provide justice to the taxpayers at their doorstep. Thus making the taxpayers at Ghaziabad, Noida, Gurgaon or Faridabad, to travel to Allahabad or Chandigarh instead of the present arrangement of settlement of their tax disputes at New Delhi, would be reversal of such policy. Sir, Yourself being an esteemed member of the Bar, are in better position to understand the difficulties of the Members of the Bar and the Trade & Industry.
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in |
Download PDF
