Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Publish Date: 03 Mar, 2011
Print   |    |  Comment

Article-New Levy on untensils:options with trade published on Taxindiaonline.com

 

                        New levy on utensils: options with trade

CA. Pradeep Jain
CA. Preeti Parihar

Introduction:-

Finance Bill, 2011 has imposed excise duty on a no. of goods that were exempted prior to announcement of Budget. It has withdrawn a no. of exemptions and has imposed the excise duty on them. One such withdrawal of exemption has been done in case of utensils made up of stainless steel and falling under tariff heading 73239420.  

Prior to Budget, 2011; utensils were exempted from payment of excise duty vide serial no. 11 of the Notification no. 10/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. Now, excise duty has been imposed on the same vide Finance Bill, 2011. The rate of excise duty has been imposed @ 1% under Notification no. 1/2011-CE dated 1.3.2011 and @ 5% vide Notification no. 2/2011-CE dated 1.3.2011.  

The process of manufacturing the utensils:-

The process of manufacture of utensils starts from purchase of SS flats which are converted to patta patti by employing the process of hot rolled and then cold rolled. After applying the cold rolled process, the patta patti is converted to stainless steel circles which are further used for manufacture of utensils. Now, the utensils manufacturers will like to take the Cenvat credit of SS flats @ 10% and pay duty @ 5% so that there is no cash outflow.  
 
The practice employed in industry:-

Thus, for manufacture of utensils prominently two types of manufacturer are there in the industry:-

Category I:-

Those units which procure the duty paid SS flats, take the Cenvat Credit and send them to job worker for carrying out the process of hot rolled and cold rolled. The goods received from the job worker are the cold rolled patta patti that are used by the manufacturer for making the circles that are further used for manufacture of utensils.

Prior to Budget, 2011; these units were not allowed to take the credit as the final product, i.e., utensils were exempt. However, now, such units can avail the Cenvat Credit on SS flats and use the same for paying the excise duty on utensils.

However, the levy of duty on utensils may obsolete the compounded levy scheme if the SS patta patti are get manufactured on the job work. In this case, credit of the SS flats will be taken and then these will be sent to job worker for carrying out cold rolled process. If the job worker is operating under the compounded levy scheme, he may be denied the benefit of this scheme. This is possible due to proviso contained in the notification no. 17/2007-CE dated 1.3.2007 which reads as follows:-

“Provided that no credit of duty paid on any raw materials, component part or machinery or finished products used for cold rolling of stainless steel pattis/pattas, or aluminium circles under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 shall be taken.”

The above proviso says that the credit of raw material used in manufacture of cold rolled rolled patta patti is not taken. In this case, the principle manufacturer has taken the credit of duty paid on SS flats which are sent to the job worker. Thus, the department may interpret that since the credit of duty paid on the raw material has been availed (though by some other person), the compounded levy scheme is not applicable. This interpretation may scrap out the compounded levy scheme.

Further, in this case, the duty has been paid by the job worker on the cold rolled patta patti under compounded levy scheme. These patta pattis are further used in manufacture of the utensils which also suffer the excise duty. Thus, the duty is levied at the two stages of the same product without the facility of Cenvat Credit thereupon. Thus, if we see logically then there is no harm of taking cenvat credit by Utensils manufacturer and manufacturer of SS patta patti operating under Compounded levy scheme. The Government is getting duty twice on the same goods.

If the job work is not allowed to units operating under special provision of compounded levy under notification 17/2009 then the option lie with utensils manufacturers to pay duty @ 1% without Cenvat credit.

Category II:-

Those who carry the entire process of the manufacture of utensils in the same factory, procure the duty paid SS flats that are subject to the process of hot rolled and cold rolled. Then circles are manufactured which are used in manufacture of utensils. Prior to this Budget of 2011, these units were not allowed to take the Cenvat Credit if these were operating under compounded levy scheme. Since the final product utensils and circles used in the manufacture of utensils were exempt duty liability was there on the patta patti. So, if the duty was paid by such manufacturers on patta patti under compounded levy; no credit was allowed. In the same case, if the duty was paid on the patta patti under normal scheme, the credit was allowed on the SS flats.

After Budget, 2011; these units will have no option other than to exit from the compounded levy scheme. In these cases, since the final product utensils have become dutiable, all the intermediate products will get exempted by virtue of notification no. 67/95-CE. So, when the duty is to be paid on utensils, then either the patta patti units will come out of compounded levy scheme or the utensils manufacturer will start taking the credit of SS flats.

Category-III:- These small units are purchasing the Stainless steel patta patti and using them in manufacture of utensils. The patta patti manufacurter are operating under compounded levy scheme. Thus these units will not get the duty paying documents and such units has to opt for paying 1% duty in cash. Moreover, as these units are very small and hence they will be eligible for SSI exemption under notification 8/2003-C.E dated 1.3.2003.  

Before parting:-

Thus, the levy of excise duty on the utensils has direct impact on the compounded levy scheme which is not considered in the Finance Bill, 2011. This may be the reason of initiation of new era of litigation.

************* 

Comments

Post a Comment



Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com