TIOL-DDT 2806
14 03 2016
Monday

REFERENCE has been received in Board regarding assessment of CVD payable on set top boxes (STBs), when imported by a Direct to Home (DTH) broadcasting service provider and where STBs are provided free of cost to the consumers of DTH service. The issue is, in such conditions, should the value for the purposes of calculation of CVD be determined on the basis of Retail Sale Price (RSP) in terms of proviso to section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Board gently reminds the field that the issue has been decided by the CESTAT in Bharti Telemedia Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva reported as 2015-TIOL-1863-CESTAT-MUM,   wherein it has been held that one of the conditions to be met for CVD to be levied on Retail Sale Price is that under the Legal Metrology Act, there should be requirement to declare on the package, the retail sale price (RSP) of the goods.

After detailed analysis, Tribunal held that in the given circumstances CVD shall not be leviable on the basis of Retail Sale Price. 

So, Board clarifies that the judgement of the Tribunal in case of M/s Bharti Telemedia Ltd, may be followed for assessment of CVD on imported STBs, where the circumstances are identical.

CBEC Circular No. 1020/8/2016-CX., Dated: March 11 2016 

Classification of 'Wireless microphone sets' - CBEC Clarifies

CBEC states, "Wireless microphone sets/systems consisting of one or more wireless microphones and a wireless receiver' were classifiable under CTH 8525 50 50. In the Finance Bill, 2016 this tariff line has been omitted. This change comes into effect immediately."

How can the deletion of an entry in the tariff have immediate effect? Only an imposition or increase can have immediate effect.

Anyway, the Board clarifies, "consequent to deletion of tariff line 8525 50 50, it is clarified that all microphones including Wireless microphone sets/systems consisting of one or more wireless microphones and a wireless receiver are classifiable under tariff item 8518 10 00."

CBEC Circular No. 9/2016-Cus., Dated: March 11 2016 

Anti Dumping duty on imports of homopolymer of vinyl chloride monomer

GOVERNMENT has amended Notification No. 27/2014-Customs (ADD), dated the 13th June, 2014, imposing anti dumping duty on imports of homopolymer of vinyl chloride monomer (suspension grade) falling under heading 3904 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, originating in or exported from Taiwan, the People's Republic of China, Indonesia, Japan, Korea RP, Malaysia, Thailand and the United States of America.

The amendment makes certain changes in respect of the countries referred to in the notification.

Notification No. 8/2016 (ADD)., Dated: March 11 2016 

Income Tax -More than 96% arrears difficult to recover

THE CAG in its latest report to Parliament on Direct Taxes states, "The uncollected demand increased from Rs. 5.75 lakh crore in FY 2013-14 to Rs. 7.00 lakh crore in FY 2014-15. The Department indicated that more than 96 per cent of uncollected demand is difficult to recover in FY 2014-15."

The CAG further states:

The number of non-corporate assessees increased from 304.03 lakhin FY 2013-14 to 360.55 lakh in FY 2014-15 registering an increase of18.6 per cent.

The number of corporate assessees increased from 6.36 lakh in FY 2013-14 to6.75 lakh in FY 2014-15 registering an increase of 6.1 per cent.

Out of total 10.3 lakh scrutiny assessment cases, the Department had disposed of 5.4 lakh cases (47.8 per cent) in FY 2014-15.

Appeals pending with CIT(A) increased from 2.15 lakh in FY 2013-14 to2.32 lakh in FY 2014-15. The amount locked up in these cases with CIT(A) was Rs. 3.84 lakh crore in FY 2014-15. The amount locked up at higher levels(ITAT/High Court/Supreme Court) increased from Rs. 1.8 lakh crore (76,922 cases) in FY 2013-14 to Rs. 1.9 lakh crore (77,448 cases) in FY 2014-15.

Can they ever clear this mountain of pending litigation?

CESTAT Wants CBEC to Issue Guidelines to Adjudicating Authorities

IN a recent case, the CESTAT, Chennai Bench called for and scrutinised the records from the office of Commissioner (Appeals) and noted:

1. The record does not show whether any personal hearing was granted or any appeal was heard by that authority.

2. A sheet showing personal hearing available on record is also not under signature of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Certain notings in the order sheet appears under signature of one A.D.O.

3. Perusal of the content of the order sheet indicates that there was noting on 22.12.2014 for fixation of hearing on 23.12.2014. But no such hearing was granted on that date i.e. 23.12.2014 in absence of any recorded action by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. A sheet showing grant of hearing on 24.12.2014 without any authentication by signature of Commissioner (Appeals) appears on record.

5. One day before the hearing fixed on 23.12.2014 record was submitted to Commissioner (Appeals) by one ADO under his signature on the order sheet.

6. Fair copies of Order-in-Appeal was put up to Commissioner (Appeals) on 21.1.2015 for signature and approval of Commissioner (Appeals).

7. There is no signature of Commissioner (Appeals) on order sheet on that date.

8. Aforesaid factual matrix discloses that the entire action of the Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to law and there is no disposal of appeal as yet on his record.

9. If this is the manner an appellate authority acts, and his undated order comes for judicial review, it is difficult to appreciate the very existence of the impugned order itself as to whether that has seen the light of the day.

The Tribunal informs the CBEC that:

1. appropriate guideline may be issued to the quasi Judicial Authorities in administrative justice system to discharge their duties publicly keeping in view the spirit of the ratio laid down by Apex Court in the case of Gordhandas Bhanji and in accordance with law.

2. Also the manner how order sheet of public record shall be maintained by such authority while they discharge public duty may be advised.

Registry was directed to send a copy of the order to the Chairman, CBE&C to do the needful at the interest of justice.

What is the address of the CBEC Chairman? The Registry has marked the order to

The Chairman
Central Board of Excise & Customs
North Block, Rashtrapathi Bhavan
New Delhi - 110001

Please see Breaking News for more details of this case.

Incidentally, last Friday, we reported the CESTAT, Mumbai decision 2016-TIOL-591-CESTAT-MUM wherein the Bench was furious with the lackadaisical attitude of the AR and wanted the Chief Commissioner (AR) to take immediate remedial measures.  The Bench had also asked the Registry to transmit a copy of the order to the Revenue Secretary and the Chairman, CBE&C.

Until Tomorrow with more DDT

Have a nice day.

Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in