TIOL-DDT 2787
16 02 2016
Tuesday

THERE is an innocuous looking Section 15A in the Central Excise Act by which the Central Excise (and Service Tax) authorities can ask for returns from anybody like VAT authorities, Company Registrar, Electricity Board, Reserve Bank and even an Income Tax Officer. This section brought into the statute in 2014 has not so far been used. The Board which was on an "ease of doing business" carnival of late, suddenly must have thought that they were distributing too many roses without the mandatory thorns. Here comes the thorn. The Board has put Section 15A into action.

The CBEC yesterday issued the Service Tax and Central Excise (Furnishing of Annual Information Return) Rules, 2016 effective from 1st April 2016.

The Reserve Bank of India is required to furnish an annual return on the details of certain foreign remittances for such entities whose value of remittances aggregates to more than fifty lakh rupees in a financial year to which the return pertains.

Similarly, an Electricity Board or an electricity distribution or transmission licensee has to furnish the return on the Electricity consumed by such manufacturers, using an induction furnace or rolling mill to manufacture goods falling under Section XV (Metals) of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) whose aggregate value of clearances exceeds one hundred and fifty lakh rupees in the financial year.

The return has to be filed electronically by 31st December to the Directorate General of Systems and Data Management. Till the proper electronic filing is in place, the return has to be given in CD or DVD. (Flash Drive not permitted?). The return has to be signed and verified. (And how do you sign a return in a CD?)

What will the Board do if RBI and Electricity Boards do not furnish the returns? As per Section 15B, "If a person who is required to furnish an information return under section 15A fails to do so within the period specified in the notice issued under sub-section (3) thereof, the prescribed authority may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty, a sum of one hundred rupees for each day of the period during which the failure to furnish such return continues.”

It may be easier and less expensive for the RBI and Electricity Boards to pay the penalty than to go round furnishing these cumbersome returns. Why does the Government need this information?; what are they going to do with it? What have they done with the mountains of information they have already collected through various returns.? And are they happy with a small penalty instead of the return. Is there any provision for advance payment of penalty?

Notification No. 04/2016- Service Tax., Dated: February 15, 2016

Board Wants to Follow a Notification Rescinded in 2005

STRANGE are the ways of CBEC - they are fond of flogging dead notifications. In the above notification, it is defined that the "Aggregate value of clearances" has the same meaning as assigned to it in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue No. 9/2003-Central Excise dated the 1st March 2003.”

Now this Notification No. 9/2003-CE was rescinded by Notification 11/2005 on 1.3.2005 - 11 years ago and the Board seems to be blissfully unaware of this notification's death. They want the electricity Boards to fish out this dead notification and find out what aggregate value means. And even this dead notification does not assign any meaning to “ Aggregate value of clearances”. Perhaps what they wanted to mention was Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003.

It is not in Central Excise matters alone that the Board is not updated, even in general government actions like change of names of States and Union Territories, the Board seems to be ten years behind schedule.

They write:

Uttarakhand as Uttaranchal   -  name changed in 2007.
Puducherry as Pondicherry    -  name changed in 2006.
Odisha as Orissa                 -  name changed in 2011.

The notification defines "Digital signature", but the words ‘Digital signature' are not used anywhere in the notification.

Please also see our article Nosy Government peeps at Citizens Through More Returns  

Customs - Smuggling of Gold - prosecution of person charged with financing the smuggling - HC order quashing prosecution set aside. Prosecution to continue. - SC

A person, let's call him PK was charged with financing a smuggling operation in which 21 kgs of gold then valued at over a crore of rupees was seized by Delhi Air Customs in July 1996. The Additional Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs on him. Interestingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty. PK never appeared in any proceedings. Prosecution was launched against him and the trial court declared him a proclaimed offender. After the Commissioner(A) set aside the penalty, a petition was filed in Delhi High Court on behalf of PK and the Delhi High Court quashed the prosecution proceedings. The Government took the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court yesterday quashed the order of the High Court and directed the trial court case to be proceeded with.

The case was booked in 1996 - 21 years ago and now the trial is to start and our PK is nowhere to be seen.

We bring you the Supreme Court order today. Please see Breaking News.

FTP - Export Policy of Pulses

"THE prohibition on export of pulses as notified vide Notification No 78(RE-2013)/2009-14 dated 31.03.2014 read with Sl. No. 54 in Chapter 7 of Schedule 2 of ITC(HS) Classification of Export & Import Items, as amended from time to time, will not apply to export of Roasted Gram (whole/split) in consumer packs upto 1 (one) Kg".

Export of Roasted Gram (whole/split) in consumer packs upto 1 (one) Kg has been permitted.

DGFT Notification No. 40/2015-2020., Dated: February 15, 2016

CBDT wants Adjudicators to follow prescribed time limit

SUB-section (8) of section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act') stipulates that where an application for amendment is made by assessee/deductor/collector with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from record, the income-tax authority concerned shall pass an order, within a period of six months from the end of the month in which such an application is received, by either making the amendment or refusing to allow the claim. It has been brought to the notice of the Board that the said time-limit of six months has not been observed in deciding some applications. In such cases, the field authorities often take a view that since no action was taken within the prescribed time-frame, the application of the taxpayer is deemed to have lapsed, thereby not requiring any action.

The CBDT instructs that:

1. time-limit of six months is to be strictly followed by the Assessing Officer while disposing applications filed by the assessee/deductor/collector under section 154 of the Act.

2. The supervisory officers should monitor the adherence of prescribed time limit and suitable administrative action may be initiated in cases where failure to adhere to the prescribed time frame is noticed.

CBDT Instruction No. 01/2016., Dated:  February 15, 2016

Clarification of the term 'initial assessment year' in section 80IA (5) of Income-tax Act

CBDT clarifies on Section 80IA (Deductions in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in infrastructure development, etc.):

It is abundantly clear from sub-section (2) that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA has the option to choose the initial/ first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen (or twenty) years, as prescribed under that sub-section. It is hereby clarified that once such initial assessment year has been opted for by the assessee, he shall be entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IA for ten consecutive years beginning from the year in respect of which he has exercised such option subject to the fulfillment of conditions prescribed in the section. Hence, the term 'initial assessment year' would mean the first year opted for by the assessee for claiming deduction u/s 80IA. However, the total number of years for claiming deduction should not transgress the prescribed slab of fifteen or twenty years, as the case may be and the period of claim should be availed in continuity.

CBDT Circular No. 01/2016., Dated:  February 15, 2016

Increase in Tariff Values of all items

GOVERNMENT has increased the Tariff value of all items except poppy seeds.

Notification No. 25/2016-Customs (NT), Dated: February 15, 2016

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a nice Day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in