MIXED BUZZ

Cabinet okays waiver of penal interest on GOI loans to Cochin Port

MSME need to go for ratings to access Institutional Credit: RBI Dy Governor

NOTIFICATION

etariff16_31

Removal of mandatory warehousing requirements for EOUs, STPIs,EHTPs etc- Amendment to Notification 22/2003-CE dt 31.3.2003

CASE LAWS

2016-TIOL-127-SC-CUS + Story

COLGATE PALMOLIVE INDIA LTD Vs CC: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Dated: August 24, 2016)

Cus - Imports from Nepal - SAD Exemption notification 124/2000-Cus dt. 29.09.2000 amending Notfn. 37/96-Cus dt. 23.07.96 is not clarificatory and was intended to be applied prospectively - SAD was not leviable and enforced when the Treaty of Trade was signed and the protocol was executed - protocol appended to the Treaty could not have conceived of future levy by way of proposition - It is difficult to appreciate that the exemption granted vide notification dated 29 th September, 2000 to special additional duty was clarificatory or to give effect to the existing protocol - it cannot be also said the issue of notification was a formal ministerial act which got delayed for administrative reasons - It was a conscious act and a deliberate decision which came into existence after due deliberation when it was decided to grant exemption under Section 3A of the Tariff Act - Appeals dismissed: Supreme Court [para 27, 28, 29, 32, 33]

Appeals dismissed

2016-TIOL-1866-HC-P&H-CX

CCE Vs MICROTEK FORGINGS: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT (Dated: August 12, 2016)

CX - Limitation - Though issue has been decided on merits in favour of revenue referring the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 2014-TIOL-74-SC-CX and Super Synotex (India) Ltd. 2014-TIOL-19-SC-CX however, on ground of limitation, issue was decided in favour of assessee - As per CBEC Circular dated 30.06.2000, any amount of concession on sales tax retained by assessee is not required to be added in assessable value - Assessee cannot be said to be at fault, hence, extended period of limitation is not available: HC

Appeal dismissed

2016-TIOL-1867-HC-P&H-CT

PUNJAB ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD Vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT (Dated: August 10, 2016)

Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Keywords - exemption - sales tax - period of benefit - expansion of capacity - capital investment - eligibility certificate - new industrial units - non compliance.

Whether when there is no evidence on record to prove that there was delay in issuance of eligibility certificate to the assessee on account of lapse on the part of Revenue, can the assessee challenge an order passed by such authority - NO: HC

The assessee is a public limited company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of caustic soda and other in-organic chemicals. It had been promoted by the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, which holds 44% shares of assessee. The New Industrial Policy, 1996 provided for various benefits to the new industrial units as well as the industrial units expanding their capacity. Assessee was incorporated in the year 1975 and came into commercial production on 30.1.1984. After the 1996 Policy was notified, the assessee after making huge investments increased the capacity for manufacturing caustic soda from 100 metric ton per day to 154 metric ton per day. The commercial production started on 18.12.1998. As per the 1996 Policy and the Punjab General Sales Tax (Deferment & Exemption) Rules, 1991, assessee was entitled to the benefit for a period of 120 months from the date of production with a cap of 300% of fixed capital investment. After the unit of assessee came into commercial production on 18.12.1998, it applied for issuance of eligibility certificate on 4.6.1999, which was granted on 22.9.2000 effective from 18.12.1998 for a period of 120 months or till such time the maximum amount of exemption was availed of, whichever was earlier. Thereafter, application was filed for grant of exemption certificate, which was granted on 3.1.2001. The assessee started availing the benefit of exemption from payment of tax on 1.4.2003 and during the period of eligibility could avail of benefit to the extent of Rs. 58.33 crores only. Before the expiry of the period of eligibility, the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries wrote a DO letter to the Financial Commissioner, Department of Excise and Taxation claiming that period of eligibility be made effective from 1.4.2003, the date from which the petitioner started availing the benefit. Vide a letter, assessee also made a request to the Principal Secretary, Department of Industries in the same line. The issue was considered in the meeting held under the Chairmanship of the then Chief Secretary on 13.1.2010 and it was decided that PSIDC should move a case for extension. Thereafter, PSIDC made a request to the Financial Commissioner, Department of Excise & Taxation. PSIDC conveyed the assessee that request for extension of period was rejected by the Department of Excise and Taxation. Challenging the same, assessee field a Writ which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to assessee to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Again a representation was made by the company to the Financial Commissioner, Department of Excise and Taxation and Principal Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce for the same relief, which was also rejected.

Held that,

++ though earlier Chairman of assessee, who was none else than the Secretary of the Department of the Industries, Govt. of Punjab, wrote a DO letter to the Financial Commissioner, Department of Excise and Taxation for extending the period of eligibility on 11/26.2.2010, however, first representation was made by the company on 22.9.2008 when the period of eligibility was going to expire. The same was considered at various levels keeping in view the fact that in assessee, PSIDC, which is government owned company, had 44% stake, but still as the request of the petitioner could not be acceded to in view of the clear provisions of the Rules, the same was rejected vide communication dated 24.5.2010. It was conveyed to PSIDC as well as the petitioner. The petitioner kept quiet and was satisfied with the decision so conveyed, though at that time the petitioner could have availed of its statutory remedy under the Act. For the first time, CWP No. 15831 of 2013 was filed in this court impugning the communication dated 3.6.2010, more than three years thereafter. There is no explanation for this delay. The same was dismissed on 26.7.2013. Even though the representation filed by the petitioner had already been rejected by the authorities and remedy of a second representation, unless the earlier order was set aside by any competent authority, could not be visualised as the remedy available to the petitioner in accordance with law, but still the petitioner preferred representation again to the Financial Commissioner, Department of Excise and Taxation and Principal Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce, who is none else than the Chairman of the Company. Even that representation was rejected and was bound to be rejected as there are no enabling provisions in the Rules under which the period for which the benefit could be availed of by an industrial unit could be extended for any reason whatsoever, as the Rules clearly provide that benefit has to be from the date of production. Even otherwise, in the case in hand, the petitioner is seeking to claim that there was delay in issuance of eligibility certificate to the petitioner on account of lapse on the part of the respondents. There is nothing on record to suggest that. As per the stand taken by the respondents, the application was initially rejected on account of non-compliance of the requisite formalities. It was only in appeal that the order was set aside and the matter was re-examined. Though the issue regarding provisional eligibility and exemption certificates was sought to be raised, but the fact remains that the petitioner made no effort for issuance thereof. The case of M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. cannot be compared as for granting the benefit to that company, there is a provision made in the Rules. This court in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction cannot direct the authorities to frame the Rules. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Assessee's appeal dismissed