TIOL-DDT 1410
27.07.2010
Tuesday
THIS issue was deliberated upon at the Conference of the Chief Commissioners of Customs on Tariff and Allied Matters held at Mumbai on 8th March 2010.
Board clarifies that “Aseptic packaging papers coated, impregnated or covered with plastics which are bleached, weighing more than 150 g/m 2 “ are classifiable under the Tariff Item 4811 51 00 and those “Aseptic Packaging papers coated, impregnated or covered with plastics which are other than ‘bleached, weighing more than 150 g/m 2' “ are classifiable under Tariff Item 4811 59 00.
CBEC Circular No. 21/2010-Cus., Dated: July 26, 2010
Import of 'Worn Clothing' – CBEC withdraws Circular but CBEC website not aware
THE CBEC's official website goes to sleep by about 4pm every day. Even if the CBEC is abolished on Friday evening, the website can report it only after 11 am on Monday. Yesterday the Board issued a Circular on import of worn clothing, but by evening requested the websites not to upload it as it is being revised. By that time, the CBEC website was closed and the Circular is very much available on their web site and perhaps this is the website which is going to run the GST!
Out of abundant respect for the Board, we don't bring you the withheld Circular.
EOUs move from Customs to Central Excise - What about Service Tax?
AS per instructions contained in the Board Circular No.31/2003 dated 07.04.2003, in the port cities, the administrative control over all the EOUs including the EHTP and STP units falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, is with the Commissioner of Customs and at other places, the administrative control over EOU/EHTP/STP units is with the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise. The only exception has been in respect of Bangalore Customs where the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore is having Administrative Control over all such units within his territorial jurisdiction.
In order to facilitate an uniform and better administration and control of such EOUs and also to facilitate the shift to Goods and Services Taxes (GST) regime in future, the Board has decided that the EOU units functioning in the jurisdiction of Customs including port cities, will henceforth be under the Administrative Control of the respective jurisdictional Central Excise Commissionerate with effect from 31-07-2010.
Bangalore Central Excise I Commissionerate has issued a Trade Notice No.27/2010, stipulating that all the 100% EOUs and EHTPs shall stand transferred to the jurisdiction of the respective Range/Division of Bangalore-I/II/III Central Excise Commissionerates and that all STPs shall stand transferred to Service Tax Commissionerate, Bangalore with effect from 31.07.2010.
It seems that after the issue of this Trade Notice, Director General, Export Promotion has clarified that all EOUS/EHTP and STPI Units presently under the administrative control of Bangalore Customs Commissionerate shall be transferred to respective jurisdictional Central Excise Commissionerate only. So the Bangalore Commissioner has issued a corrigendum to his Trade Notice.
A Departmental officer asks, “While Service Tax matters pertaining to the LTU fall under Bangalore LTU Commte there is no reason why Service Tax Matters pertaining to EOU / EHTP / STPI also should not go to concerned CE Division. This will reduce the huge backlog in Service TAX REFUNDS and Demands of ST Commte of BANGALORE. All Software companies will also benefit if jurisdiction goes to Central Excise.” Seems to be a really concerned officer.
Bangalore I Central Excise Commissioner's Trade Notice No. 27/2010 dated 10.06.2010 and corrigendum Dated 28.06.2010.
Intaxication at Apex Level – Revenue wins hands Down – Seagram loses Sober war
'PASSPORT' is not what you need to go out of the country; ‘Black and White' has nothing to do with your income; VAT is not related to taxes; Black Dog is not exactly what Maneka Gandhi would fight for and there is nothing really special about Something Special.
These are all brand names of premium alcoholic drinks and were all together in the intaxicating precincts of the Supreme Court.
In a major decision in favour of the Revenue, the Supreme Court held that valuation of imported CAB - Concentrate of Alcoholic Beverages, was no more an issue as the Supreme Court had earlier dismissed the party's appeal against the Tribunal order.
This Judgement was delivered yesterday and TIOL brings it to you today.
Please See Breaking News
Is CCE, Delhi dictating as to which cases should be transferred to Call Book?
“WE got this mail from a concerned Departmental officer.
The Circular no. 719/35/2003-CX, dated May 26, 2003 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs on the subject ‘Checks on delays – Maintenance of Call Book – instructions – reg.' has the following to say –
“… It was further clarified vide Circular No. 162/73/95-CX., dated 14-12-1995 that only following type of categories of cases can be transferred to Call Book :-
(i) Cases in which the Department has gone in appeal to the appropriate authority,
(ii) Cases where injunction has been issued by Supreme Court/ High Court/CEGAT, etc.
(iii) Cases where audit objections are contested.
(iv) Cases where the Board has specifically ordered the same to be kept pending and to be entered into the call book.”
I happened to go through the Circular dated 14.12.1995 referred to above and to my surprise this is how that Circular ends –
“2. The Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Delhi has requested for inclusion of certain categories of cases for
(i) Cases in which the Department has gone in appeal to the appropriate authority.
(ii) Cases where injunction has been issued by Supreme Court/ High Court/ CEGAT, etc.
(iii) Cases where audit objections are contested.
(iv) Cases where the Board has specifically ordered the same to be kept pending and to be entered into the call book.
Surprisingly, the said Circular dated 14.12.1995 does not say that the Board agrees with the inclusion of the categories as suggested by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Delhi but merely communicates his suggestion, which as can be seen, has become the unwritten law in Call Book matters.
I thought that the Board Circular dated 14.12.1995 which I am referring to and published in the private journals and Taxation websites was an incomplete one. I, therefore, went through the CBEC website and found that nothing was amiss. See http://cbec.gov.in/excise/cx-circulars/cx-circulars-95/162-95-cx.htm. So, it all boils down to one thing and that is that the Board has unwittingly acceded to the requests made by CCE & C, Delhi.
Unfortunately, I could not lay hands on the Hindi version of the referred Circular, that is, if at all it exists!”
Would the Board like to retrospectively amend its Circular dated 14.12.1995?”
Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases
Central Excise
Excess Duty paid - No mens rea - No penalty under Section 11AC- High Court
THE Commissioner of Central Excise is the appellant. The only issue is relating to the deletion of penalty. The appellant seeks to raise the following substantial question of law:
"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was right in concluding that no penalty was imposable, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no discretion is available on the quantum of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, in the decision in Union of India vs. M/s.Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008-TIOL-192-SC-CX-LB)?"
Wealth Tax
Did commercial complex figure in list of assets prior to amendment in provisions of Sec 2(e)(a) - Yes, assessee not entitled to benefits of 2(e)(a) as amendment is prospective: ITAT
THE issue in the instant case relates to wealth tax. And the question before the Tribunal is - Whether prior to the amended provisions of section 2(e)(a) the commercial complexes were very much “assets” and the amended provisions, which excludes the commercial complex from the definition of “assets”, are prospective in effect. Whether as per the agreement between the assessee and the other party it can be construed that the agreement was for the lease of the property and hence benefit provided in section 2(e)(a) of the Act will not be available to the assessee as per the amended provisions of section 2(ea).
Service Tax
Cenvat Credit on ‘Garden Maintenance Service' is available under CCR, 2004 – Revenue's request for constituting a Larger Bench is totally irrelevant and unacceptable as contrary judgments referred to are ones pertaining to same appeals of assessee and which orders have been remanded by High Court: CESTAT
See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice DAY
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com
