TIOL-DDT 887
16.06.2008
Monday

No CBEC Chairman had ever visited Vizag. Mr. P C Jha the present Chairman was in Vizag on Saturday to address our Seminar. He had a full House – the hall was jam packed. Unassuming, simple, frank and highly responsive, Mr. Jha clean bowled Vizag. We had carried a report on the opening session on Saturday. Today we bring you excerpts from his speech.

It is not every day that a Chairman visits an out of the way place like Vizag and so the expectations were too high, which the Chairman clearly understood.

Not only the trade, but also Departmental officers wanted us to bring to his notice their grievances, which of course as a carrier, we did.

Mr. Shailendra Kumar , Managing Editor of TIOL said that Service Tax is threatening to overtake all taxes in the country and is likely to become unmanageable not only for the tax administration, but the tax payer also. He highlighted TIOL's role in bridging the gap between the tax payer and the tax administration, the seminars in different cities being part of this mission.

Mr. Somesh Arora, a former Revenue official and now Head of Taxation of Reliance Haryana SEZ, spoke about the intricacies in the SEZ Laws and conflicts with other laws. He pointed out that in some cases, the Department is taking clearances to SEZ as exports, but in some other cases, they don't consider them as exports. The Chairman said that the issue is under discussion between the Commerce and the Revenue Departments and a decision will be taken soon.

The Chief Commissioner, Vizag Mr. Vittal Das explained the remarkable achievements of his zone and the Chairman was all praise for him and his officers.

Mr. Gautam Bhattacharya , the Commissioner, Service Tax in the Board was as usual the star clarificator answering patiently all the questions put to him.

The Chairman Making a Point? And listening in rapt attention are S. C Choudhury , former Commissioner, Vijay Kumar , Gautam Bhattacharya , Somesh Arora and Shailendra Kumar (partly seen)

We thank the dignitaries wholeheartedly for acceding to our request and making it to the seminar even on a Saturday. TIOL's mission of bringing the brains behind the Tax legislations to the doorstep of the assessee will continue in the future as well. We also thank the delegates who have made it to the seminar. We will bring you more about the seminars in the days to come.

Increase in Excise duty for motor vehicles and motor cars – Government's balancing act?

Recently, owing to the pressure from various political parties the Government has reduced Customs and Excise duties on petro products while the price of petrol, diesel and LPG were raised to save the oil companies. This reduction in duties on petro products would have an impact on the Government's revenues. To offset this revenue loss the Government has increased the tariff rates and effective rates of excise duty on motor vehicles and motor cars. Government's attempt to do this balancing act may help the oil companies, but with the rise in fuel prices and now this increase in excise duties on motor vehicles and motor cars would be a double whammy for automotive sector.

Notification No. 39 & 40/2008- CE all dated 13th June, 2008

Increase / decrease in Export duty on iron ores and concentrates, products of Iron and steel – Government's magic wand goes up and down?

Of late the Government has been tinkering with the export duties very often that it has become an act of jugglery. Government's magic wand goes up and down and so does the rates of duties of various products of iron and steel, iron ores and concentrates.

Notification No. 77, 78, 79 and 80 of Customs all dated 13th June, 2008

Jurispruden tiol – Tomorrow's cases

Income Tax

Onus to prove the service of the notice on the assessee within the statutory period is upon the Assessing Officer and not upon the assessee. As per provisions of Section 143(2) a statutory notice under section 143(2) of the Act is required to be served on the assessee within 12 months from the end of the month in which the return has been filed and it is not only required to be issued within 12 months from the end of the month in which the return has been filed. It means that the onus to prove the service of the notice on the assessee within the statutory period is upon the Assessing Officer and not upon the assessee.

In the instant case the Assessing Officer has failed to discharge the onus of proving the service of the notice upon the assessee under section 143(2) of the Act within the statutory period of limitation i.e. on or before 31.10.2002 (in the instant case of the assessee) because in the instant case the notice was only issued by the Assessing Officer on 31.10.2002 but neither the same has been received back by the Assessing Officer nor the department is able to prove the service of the notice upon the assessee on 31. 10.2002, therefore, the notice under section 143(2) of the Act is not proved to have been served upon the assessee on or before 31.10.2002 by the Department and, hence, any service of notice thereafter on a subsequent date is barred by a period of limitation as provided under proviso to section 143(2) of the Act.

Central Excise

Control samples – no duty payable; when a manufacturer preserves the samples of their product for some period for investigation of complaints, no duty shall be charged on these samples considering that those goods remain within the factory. It was held that the duty shall be charged only when the samples are cleared from the factory.

No penalty for not entering in the records - In our view, in the daily account register only those items are to be entered, which are withdrawn from the factory. Hence, in this appeal, no substantial question of law is arising from the order of the CESTAT

We do not find any substance in this argument, as in the case of CCE v. Dabur India Limited ( CEA No. 2 of 2005) (supra), it was held that no duty is to be charged on the control sample, but the proper account of receipts and utilization of such sample in the laboratory should be maintained. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the proper account was not being maintained, but it is said that the sample is to be accounted in the daily register. In our view, in the daily account register only those items are to be entered, which are withdrawn from the factory.

Customs

Notification 160/92- Cus – only a declaration is to be given that the export goods are manufactured using the machinery imported – evidence not required – DGFT issuing a certificate that export obligation has been fulfilled – Customs cannot dispute the same

The respondents have given sufficient explanation substantiating their claim that the exported goods were manufactured out of the imported capital goods against the disputed licence. There is not an iota of evidence to the contrary by the Customs. Besides under Notification No. 160/92- Cus the fulfillment of export obligation was to be verified by the licencing authority who were required to issue a certificate that the export obligation has been fulfilled. This certificate has been issued in the present it case and this certificate cannot be disputed by the customs authority. If they had any doubt over the certificate, they should have taken up the matter with the DGFT authorities and get the certificate modified. In the absence of the same the certificate issued by the DGFT authorities cannot be challenged.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements

Until tomorrow with more DDT

Have a nice Day

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com