News Update

Income tax hands over Rs 1700 Cr tax demand to Congress PartyGST - Neither SCN nor the order spell out the reasons for retrospective cancellation of registration, hence cannot be sustained: HCStage-2 of Vikram-1 orbital rocket successfully test-firedGST - Non-application of mind - If reply was unsatisfactory, details could have been sought - Record does not reflect that such exercise was done - Matter remitted: HCHouthis claim UK has not capability to intercept their hypersonic missilesGST - Merely because a taxpayer has not filed returns for some period does not mean that registration is required to be cancelled with retrospective date also covering the period when returns were filed and taxpayer was compliant: HCIsraeli forces kill 200 Palestinians at Gaza medical complex & arrest over 1000GST - Petitioner's reply, although terse, is not taken into account while passing assessment orders - Petitioner put on terms, another opportunity provided: HCUnveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerCus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTAT
 
A few legislative amendments required in Central Excise

By R M Gangreddiwar

BUDGET 2008 is now only a couple of weeks away and I would like to bring certain points to the notice of the Finance Minister. And there are as follows :

++ Penal provisions for violation of Section 11D :

Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is a self-contained provision providing for the statutory liability of any amount of duty collected by the assessee in excess of the duty paid on any excisable goods, realized in any manner as representing duty of excise.  Further Section 11DD provides for the interest liability on the duty amount payable under Section 11D.  However, there is no penal provision for non-payment of the excess duty amount collected by the assessee.  A penal provision ought to be also enacted to deter such “tax evaders”. 

++ Remission under Rule 21 of CER’ 2002 – prescription of time limit :

Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 provides remission of duty on the goods lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident or claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing, at any time before removal.  It is noticed that several manufacturers are approaching the department seeking such remission much after the actual incidence resulting in practical difficulties in verifying such claim.  Consequently, such claims are rejected by the competent authorities and the matter drags on before the Tribunal and in remand proceedings.  It is suggested that a “reasonable time limit” should be prescribed in the rule for filing such remission claims.

++ Section 6 of CEA '44 needs amendment :

Section 6 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides for registration of the goods manufactured included in the First and Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.  Since goods specified in Third Schedule & which are subjected to notified activities are held to be “manufacture” in terms of Section 2(f)(iii) of the CEA’44, such “manufacturers” would also necessarily be required to take out registration.  As such, Section 6 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 needs to be amended to make a reference to Third Schedule too.

+ Rebate of duty for exports to countries other than Nepal and Bhutan — Procedure Notification No. 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.) as amended :

Para (3)(ix) of Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1.3.2005 issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 reads as under :

Where the goods are not exported directly from the factory of manufacture or warehouse, the triplicate copy of application shall be sent by the Superintendent having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture or warehouse, who shall, after verification, forward the triplicate copy in the manner specified in sub-paragraph (vii)”.

The word “by” before the word Superintendent appears to be incorrectly used in place of the word “to”. To remove ambiguity, the same needs to be substituted accordingly.

(The views expressed are strictly personal.)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023