Payment of Refund - Board Decides to accept High Court Order
19 06 2015
Friday
THE High Court observed that this was an unusual case.
A Commissioner (Appeals) after a long drawn litigation allowed on 28.12.2011, refund of Service Tax paid for the period 10.9.2004 to 31.12.2004. Commissioner filed an appeal in the Tribunal along with an application for staying the implementation of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal on 10.9.2012 rejected the application for stay.
Despite the rejection of the stay application of the Department by the Tribunal, the service tax deposited by the assessee was not refunded. And the assessee approached the High Court.
The High Court by its order dated 11.03.2015, which was reported by us as 2015-TIOL-761-HC-KAR-ST, directed that the order dated 28.12.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) be implemented and the assessee be refunded the amount of service tax so deposited along with interest to which he may be entitled to. The Court also directed that the refund may be given as expeditiously as possible, but, not later than six weeks from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order before the respondent.
Within six weeks, the Commissioner promptly sent a proposal to the Board to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court against the High Court order.
Good sense prevailed in the Board. CBEC decided that this case does not deserve filing of SLP. The good Board not only decided not to continue with this illegal litigation, but also brought to the notice of the Commissioner its Circular No. 572/9/2001-CX dt, 22.02.2001, wherein it was stated:
The cases where refund arises due to order of Commissioner (Appeals) or Commissioner of Central Excise/ Customs and decision is taken to contest them before CEGAT.
In such cases appeal/stay application should be filed expeditiously well before the expiry of stipulated period of three months (and not waiting for the last date of filing of appeal). However, no refund/rebate claim should be withheld on the ground that an appeal has been filed against the order giving the relief, unless stay order has been obtained. It would be the responsibility of the concerned Commissioner to obtain stay order expeditiously where the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals) suffer from serious infirmities and it involves grant of heavy refunds.
It was in utter disobedience to the Board direction that the refund was rejected, in spite of Stay application being rejected.
Because of the overanxious urge of an officer to protect revenue, the Government is made to pay interest for three years and the assessee was denied funds which was its legal entitlement. The assessee also had to go through the torture of unnecessary litigation.
The assessee loses his money, time and efforts; the Government loses interest and reputation, but the babus who are responsible for all this do not lose anything. They will probably get a promotion.
Board deserves all praise for deciding not to drag the issue to the Supreme Court and advising the Commissioner to follow its unambiguous Instructions meticulously.
Board should reiterate these instructions to all Commissioners and tell them once again that disobedience will be viewed seriously.
CBEC Letter to Principal Commissioner in F. No. 276/186/2015-CX.8A., Dated: June 01, 2015
FTP - Courier Imports and Exports Regulations Amended
CBEC has amended the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 to align with the new Foreign Trade Policy (2015-2020)
Notification No. 62/2015-Cus (N.T.)., Dated: June 17, 2015
Customs - New Exchange Rates from Today - But Board Bungles on Date
CBEC has notified new exchange rates for Imported Goods and for Export Goods with effect from 19th June 2015. The US Dollar is at 64.55 rupees for imports and 63.50 rupees for exports.
The earlier notification No. 52/2015 is rescinded. But the Board has bungled here. The Board Notification says, "in super session of the notification of the Central Board of Excise & Customs No.52/2015-CUSTOMS (N.T.), dated 18th June, 2015,..."
Notification No. 52/2015 was dated 4th June and not 18 th June. In fact 18th June was yesterday when the new notification was issued.
Technically what happens now is that Notification No. 52/2015 is not superseded as it is not dated 18th June and so is still valid. So, from today there are two prevailing exchange rates and the importer/exporter can choose one of them!
We know the Board gets very angry when we point out such silly mistakes, but the point we humbly submit to the Board is law making deserves more attention.
Notification No.63/2015-CUS(N.T.), Dated: June 18, 2015
Repayment of deposits accepted by companies - MoCA Clarifies
THE Ministry has received representations seeking clarification regarding processing of the deposits related complaints received from investors under section 74 of the Companies Act, 2013 in respect of defaults made by companies in repayment of deposits accepted by them before the commencement of the Act i.e. before 1st April, 2014 and filing of prosecutions against defaulting companies by the Registrars of Companies/Regional Directors.
The Ministry clarifies that:
vide Removal of Difficulties (Second) Order [S.O. 1428(E)] dated 2nd June, 2014 and Removal of Difficulties (Fourth) Order [S.O. 146O(E)] dated 6th June,2014, the Company Law Board has been empowered to exercise the powers of National Company Law Tribunal under sub-section (4) of section 73 and sub-section (2) of section 74 of the Act, till the latter's constitution. Thus, a depositor is free to file an application under section 73(4) of the said Act, with the Company Law Board if the company fails to make repayment of deposits accepted by it.
the company may also file application under section 74(2) of the said Act with the Company Law Board seeking extension of time in making the repayment of deposits accepted by it before the commencement of the provisions of the Act.
Explanation appearing below Rule 19 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 clarifies the conditions subject to which a company would be deemed to have complied with the requirements laid down in Section 74(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013. Companies can repay deposits accepted prior to 1st April, 2014 in accordance with terms and conditions for which the deposits had been accepted.
there is no bar on the Registrar of Companies for filing of prosecution against a company if such company fails to make repayment of deposits accepted by it under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 or Companies Act, 2013.
Ministry of Corporate Affairs General Circular No. 09/2015., Dated: June 18, 2015
Building Management Information System (MIS) for CBEC
BOARD has decided to build a Management Information System (MIS) for CBEC so that various critical information relating to key result areas are collected in a reliable, efficient and useful manner.
All reports furnished by the field formations have to be now online. The web-based utility will be operational w.e.f. 15th July, 2015.
From 15th July, 2015, the Zonal CCs/DGRI/DGCEl are required to validate the returns submitted by the Commissionerates/ADGs under their jurisdiction. While the Zonal CCs/DGRI/DGCEl may authorize any officer in his office to access the MIS and validate their respective MPRs submitted/uploaded by the Commissionerates/ADGs, they would continue to remain responsible for the accuracy of the information validated in the MPRs and take necessary action to correct the MPR if any error is noticed.
CBEC Instructions in F. No. 296/236/2014-CX-9 (Pt-II)., Dated: June 17, 2015
CBEC Wants CCs to Transfer new ACs
IT was only day before yesterday that the CBEC transferred 198 Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner level officers. In November 2014, more than 2000 officers were promoted as Assistant Commissioners and they were all posted wherever they were working. Officers below the level of Commissioners are allotted to the Chief Commissioners who post them in their respective zones.
Now Board wants the Chief Commissioners to transfer the Assistant Commissioners who were retained at the same station in November.
Is it worth transferring so many officers just for the fun of transfers? Each transferred officer costs the nation about two lakhs of rupees.
CBEC F. No.A.22013/5/2015-Ad.ll., Dated: June 17, 2015
Service Tax -Three SCNs from three Commissioners classifying same activity under three different services
THE Service Tax Law is so clear to the tax administrators that they arrive at different conclusions at different places.
Here is an assessee who operates from Kolkata, Mumbai and Cochin providing identical service.
The Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai proposed classification of services under "Business Auxiliary Services".
The Commissioner of Kolkata has proposed the classification under "Support Services of Business or Commerce".
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin has proposed the classification under "Steamer Agent Service".
One of the cases reached the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal. Now, the Bangalore Bench could not decide the Kolkata and Mumbai Commissionerate issue. So, the Bench remanded the Cochin case to the Cochin Commissionerate to decide the correct course of action to be taken.
Imagine what will happen in GST!
Please see 2015-TIOL-1141-CESTAT-BANG
WCO Photo Competition 2015 - The Russian Entry - Customs in Cockpit
Until Monday with more DDT
Have a nice weekend.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in
