TIOL-DDT 2144
09.07.2013
Tuesday

AN assessee paid Service Tax online in the assessee code of their sister concern by mistake. Realising the mistake, they requested the Commissioner to transfer the amount paid to the correct account. The Department informs him that there is no provision/procedure for transfer of Service Tax paid against one STCNo.to another STC No. The assessee was advised to claim refund of Service Tax paid under the wrong assessee code and pay the Service Tax due under the correct code. Will the Department give that refund?

This assessee will go through the litigation process for the next ten years - all because it keyed in the wrong numbers while making e-payment of Service Tax. Is there really no scope for rectifying a mistake?

Suppose while paying TDS, you mention the wrong PAN, is the money lost forever?

Anti-Dumping Duty on rubber chemicals continued - Resurrection Again

THE designated authority had initiated review in the matter of continuation of anti-dumping duty on rubber chemicals, namely, MBT, CBS, TDQ, PVI, TMT and PX-13(6PPD), falling within Chapter 29 or 38, originating in, or exported from, People's Republic of China, imposed vide notification No. 133/2008 -Customs, dated 12/12/2008 and had requested for extension of anti-dumping duty up to one more year.

So, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 9A of the said Customs Tariff Act and in pursuance of rule 23 of the said rules, makes the following amendment in the captioned notification inasmuch as: -

In the said notification, after paragraph 2, the following shall be inserted, namely:

"3. Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove, this notification shall remain in force upto and inclusive of the 4 th day of May, 2014, unless revoked earlier".

But this notification lapsed on the 5th day of May 2013 and now they have breathed life back into the dead notification!

Notification no. 16/2013-Cus.,(ADD), Dated: July 5, 2013

Anti-Dumping Duty on rubber chemical PX-13 (6PPD) continued - Yet another resurrection

THE designated authority had initiated review in the matter of continuation of anti-dumping duty on rubber chemical, namely, PX-13 (6PPD), falling within Chapter 29 or 38 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), originating in, or exported from, Korea RP, imposed vide notification No. 92/2011 -Customs, dated the 20th September, 2011 and had requested for extension of anti-dumping duty up to one more year.

So, the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 9A of the said Customs Tariff Act and in pursuance of rule 23 of the said rules, makes the following amendment in the captioned notification inasmuch as: -

In the said notification, in paragraph 2, for the words and figures "4th May, 2013”, the words and figures "4th May, 2014" shall be substituted.

This notification also lapsed on 5th May 2013. In fact the notification specifically mentioned, "The anti-dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be effective from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette and up to and inclusive of 4th May, 2013 and will be paid in Indian currency."

And now they say it is valid till May 2014. What is the position of imports made in June 2013? Were the importers and Customs officers expected to dream that the Government would extend the anti dumping duty retrospectively?

Notification no. 17/2013-Cus.,(ADD), Dated: July 5, 2013

There is no time limit prescribed for filing of Stay application - once appeal was filed in time, Stay application should not have been dismissed on ground of delay - Matter remanded: CESTAT

AGAINST an O-in-O dated 04/05/2012, the appellant filed an appeal within the time limit prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962. Thereafter, they filed a Stay application on 01/11/2012 i.e after 118 days of receipt of the o-in-o.

The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Stay application on the ground that the same was not filed within the time limit prescribed under section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 and directed the appellant to deposit the drawback amount of Rs.13,45,842/-. Thereafter, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 12.03.2013 dismissed the appeal for non-compliance with the Interim order-in-appeal dated 04.01.2013.

Aggrieved, the appellant is before the CESTAT and the Bench held -

“4.1 We find that the appeal has been filed under section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 within the time limit prescribed under the Customs Act. There is no time limit prescribed for filing of stay application in the said Act. Therefore, the stay application should not have been dismissed on the ground of delay in filing the stay application particularly in the circumstances when the appeal was filed in time. In these circumstances, we remand the matter back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the stay application on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.”

The appeal was allowed by way of remand.

See 2013-TIOL-1036-CESTAT-MUM

Cochin Custom House

Jurisprudentiol - Wednesday's cases

Customs

Customs - Import of old and used Datagraphic Display Tubes - covered by Hazardous Waste Rules - Liable to confiscation and re-export: CESTAT

THE appellant imported a consignment declared to be of Datagraphic Display Tubes for clearance of which they filed a bill of entry. After assessment of duty and payment of the duty assessed, the goods were examined and were ordered to be cleared out of customs charge. However, at this stage, the consignment was stopped by the SIIB Officers who conducted 100% examination and on examination the goods appeared to be old and used.

Income Tax

Whether surrendered income has to be quantified on basis of incriminating material found during search or on basis of any other evidences collected during assessment proceedings - ruled against Revenue: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are -Whether addition made by the Assessing Officer merely on the basis of statement u/s 132(4) can be sustained in the absence of any evidence, material or recovery of any movable or immovable assets at the time of search to corroborate the disclosure made by the assessee and Whether the surrendered income has to be quantified on the basis of the incriminating material found during the search or on the basis of any other evidence collected during the assessment proceedings. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.

Service Tax

There is no mention of appellant anywhere in body of SCN and only at beginning name of appellant figures - entire proceedings are vitiated and order is not sustainable in law: CESTAT

IN the show cause notice, the demand for service tax has been made against M/s Ispat Industries Ltd. as the recipient of the services. There is no mention of the appellant anywhere in the body of the show cause notice and only at the beginning, the appellant's name figures. There is no demand from the appellant towards any service tax liability. In other words, there is no valid show cause notice against the appellant towards any service tax demand. Without issue of a notice, no order can be passed against the appellant. It is further noted that the appellant was not heard and personal hearing was granted only to the recipient of the service, M/s Ispat Industries Ltd. and after considering the submissions of M/s Ispat Industries Ltd. the demands were dropped against them and the same was confirmed against the appellant. Inasmuch as the appellant has not been put to notice, the entire proceedings are vitiated and consequently the order passed against the appellant is not sustainable in law.

See our Columns Wednesday for the judgements

Until Wednesday with more DDT

Have a nice day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com