IN terms of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, an appeal shall be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within sixty days from the date of communication of the order appealed against. This time limit may be extended by another thirty days if sufficient cause is shown for delay in filing the appeal.

In contrast, Section 85(3) of the Finance Act, 1994 provides that an appeal shall be filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) within three months from the date of communication of the order appealed against, which can be extended by another three months if sufficient cause is shown for delay in filing the appeal.

It is not known why there should be different time periods for filing appeals in respect of Central Excise and Service Tax cases.

As we entered the era of allowing cross utilization of credit on goods and services through CENVAT Credit Rules, which will become more seamless once GST takes off, there seems to be a lot of confusion with regard to appeals filed in cases relating to the demand/recovery of credit on inputs/ input services.

While some appeals are being filed as “service tax appeals” under Finance Act, 1994 even by manufacturers with regard to disputes related to credit eligibility on input services, (please see 2009-TIOL-2210-CESTAT-MAD) there may be instances where appeals are filed as “excise appeals” under the Central Excise Act, 1944 by service providers in disputes regarding eligibility of credit on inputs or capital goods.

When the time limit in respect of appeals to the CESTAT is the same irrespective of the case originating from excise or service tax domain, one fails to understand the logic behind maintaining different time limits for filing of appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) under the two legislations.

However, there is certainly a positive take away from this mix up of time limits as cited in the above example. If you are a manufacturer and by a stroke of misfortune if you miss the deadline of two month period (three months after extension) in filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) in respect of dispute on eligibility of CENVAT Credit on services, there is no reason to worry, file it is as a service tax appeal. 

Prohibition of Export of Pulses extended by one year

THE prohibition on export of pulses imposed vide Notification No.15 (RE-2006)/2004-2009, dated 27.6.2006 was last extended upto 31.3.2010 vide Notification 99 (RE-2008)/2004-2009, Dated: March 27, 2009.

Now, this prohibition has been extended by one more year, i.e , till 31.3.2011.

DGFT Notification No. 35/2009-2014, Dated : March 30, 2010

The EOU Code

NETIZENS may recall the case relating to third time cess we carried recently? (2010-TIOL-408-CESTAT-AHM).

The Tribunal held that once education cess is added to the customs duties to arrive at the aggregate of customs duties, the question of charging education cess again does not arise. This has led to an interesting issue. Do the EOUs need to pay the education cesses on Customs and CVD parts under the respective account heads? This is the question raised by many EOUs and it appears that the entire duty has to be paid under the account code for Central Excise Duty only. The Tribunal in the above case has clearly held that “once the duty rate is enhanced with inclusion of the cess, it is part of the relevant type of the duty”. But many filed officers may not accept this and a clarification would be helpful to all concerned.

TIOL 10th Anniversary 'Special Compilation of Articles' - Netizens' write-ups invited

ON the occasion of its 10th Anniversary, TIOL has decided to publish a 'Special Compilation of Articles' in a colourful format. If you have any interesting stories on taxation, please forward them before 9th April 2010. The shortlisted stories will be published in this compilation. Send in your entries to editor@taxindiaonline.com .

Strategic Objectives for 2010-11

These are the six strategic objectives for the year 2010-11 of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs organization (HMRC), which is responsible for administration and collection of taxes in the UK which is close to Rs. 32 lakh crores in the year 2008-09. The HMRC has come out with its vision paper for the year 2010-11 highlighting its achievements for the year 2009-10 and declaring its strategic objectives for the year 2010-11 and also outlining the ways and means to achieve those objectives.

Though HMRC is a government department working under the Treasury Secretary of the British Government, it has modelled itself as a corporate body and functions as a corporate organization with well defined aims, objectives coupled with social responsibility.

Now compare this with our tax administrators whose early footprints started in the days of British Raj. When was the last time our Revenue Boards came out with any aims or objectives for any given financial year? In fact, CBEC's Citizen's Charter (and its modified version in 2008), has only ended up as an ornamental piece adorning the walls of the offices working under CBEC and is gathering dust in most, if not all the field offices.

Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

Central Excise

Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 being a penal provision providing for mandatory penalty cannot have retrospective operation - it cannot be invoked in a case where period of dispute or offence is prior to 28th September, 1996: Bombay High Court.

THIS appeal was admitted in September, 2005 to consider the substantial question of law whether the provisions of section 11AC are applicable to cases where show cause notice is issued subsequent to the enforcement of provisions of section 11AC i.e. 28.9.1996 even though the period of dispute is prior to 28.9.1996?

Income Tax

Income tax - Sec 10A - business losses of non-STPI unit not to be set off against profits of STPI unit for determining allowable deduction under Sec 10A: ITAT Special Bench

THE Section 10 was introduced way back in 1981 but the number of disputes continue to mount. In the latest decision the dispute was - Whether the business losses of non-STPI unit are to be set off against the profits of STPI unit which is eligible for deduction u/s 10A for the purpose of determining allowable deduction u/s 10A. And the Tribunal's Special Bench verdict says NO.

Customs

Import of newsprint without payment of duty under actual user condition and allegation of diversion of imported goods – When serious allegations are made in the SCN regarding mis - declaration, undervaluation and diversion of goods imported duty free into domestic market, Commissioner right in imposing stringent conditions for provisional release of seized goods – High Court

ON 22nd December 2006, a show cause notice was issued by the Directorate of Intelligence (DRI) stating that it had received intelligence that some unscrupulous importers of Paper and Paper Board (falling under Chapter Heading No.48 of Customs Tariff) were evading customs duty by way of mis -declaration of the description of the imported goods and undervaluing the same, in connivance with various holders of certificates issued by the Registrar of Newspapers in India

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a nice day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com