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: 17 Oct, 2008
Print   |    |  Comment

Article on Recent Amendments in Excise Return (ER-4, ER-5, ER-6)

                                                                                                                          

                                                                  - Sukhvinder Kaur, LLB(FYIC)

 
Excise Returns: Recent Amendments
 
 
Every manufacturer has to file certain prescribed returns regarding his production, financial position, information on principal inputs etc. The filing of returns has been prescribed in the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
 
The Central Board of Excise and Customs has brought certain changes in the Central Excise Rules, 2002 regarding filing of returns by a manufacturer. These changes have been brought due to falling revenue collections. These changes have been made to check the evasion of duty in the industry and increase the revenue collections.
 
These changes have been explained in the following paras:
 
1.) Annual Financial Information Statement (ER-4):-
 
Rule 12 (2) (a) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 provides that every assessee has to submit an Annual Financial Information Statement for which the statement relates by 30th day of November of the succeeding year. This Statement is to be filed in ER-4 to the Superintendent of Central Excise. However, the assessees paying excise duty less than One Crore from account current during the financial year, to which the Annual Financial Information Statement relates, were granted exemption from filing the said Statement vide Notification No. 17/2006-CE (NT), dated 1.08.06.
 
Now, Notification No. 17/2006-CE has been amended by Notification No. 42/2008-CE (NT) dated 29.09.08. The words “from account current” have been omitted from the Notification No.17/2006-CE. The effect of this amendment is that the assessee, who is paying excise duty of One Crore and more in total, i.e. from PLA as well as from Cenvat Credit Account, is now required to submit the Annual Financial Information Statement in ER-4. This statement is to be submitted by 30th November. Earlier, only the assessee paying excise duty of more than 1 Crore from account current (PLA) were required to file the Annual Financial Information Statement in ER-4 format.
 
2.)  Information relating to principle inputs (ER-5):-          
 
Rule 9A (1) provides that a manufacturer of final products has to furnish a declaration in respect of each of the excisable goods manufactured or to be manufactured by him, the principal inputs and the quantity of such inputs required for use in the manufacture of unit quantity of such final products. The said declaration is required to be filed in Form ER-5 annually before 30th April of each financial year. Notification No. 39/2004-CE(NT) dated 25.11.04 exempted the manufacturers of the following categories of goods from filing ER-5 who had paid excise duty less than One Crores from Current Account during the preceding financial year.
 
Now, vide Notification No. 41/2008-CE(NT) dated 29.09.08 the words “through account current” have been omitted. The effect of this amendment is that the assessee who is paying excise duty of One Crore and more in total i.e from PLA as well as from Cenvat Credit Account is required to file the Information relating to principal inputs in ER-5. This return is to be filed by 30th April of each financial year. Earlier, only the assessee paying excise duty of more than 1 Crore from account current (PLA) were required to file the Information relating to principle inputs in ER-5 format.
 
3.) Declaration by SSI units availing exemption from Registration:-
 
Notification No. 36/2001-CE(NT), dated 26.06.01 provides exemption from Registration to units manufacturing goods subject to ‘nil’ rate of duty or are fully exempt from excise duty by virtue of a Notification. Units availing SSI exemption are covered under this Notification. However, such units are required to file declaration that they fall under the exemption fixed, by submitting the details of goods manufactured by the factory during the preceding Financial Year.
 
Notification No. 36/2001-CE (NT) has been amended vide Notification No. 40/2008-CE(NT) dated 29.09.08. Now, the Units availing small scale excise exemption are required to file revised declaration for the year 2007-08 in new form for Declarant Units.
This revised declaration is to be filed by 31st October, 2008 in new form.
 
4.) Annual Installed Capacity Statement in ER-7:-
 
Returns to be filed by an assessee have been prescribed under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. CBEC has amended Rule 12 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 by the Central Excise (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2008 which have been introduced vide Notification No. 38/2008-CE (NT), dated 29.09.08. A new sub-rule (a) has been added which provides that every manufacturer has to submit an Annual Installed Capacity Statement.  
 
In this statement the assessee has to declare the annual production capacity of his factory for the Financial Year to which the statement relates. This means the assessee has to gives its annual production capacity of products manufactured, the details of main plant and machinery installed in the factory as well as the details of electricity consumed in his factory.
 
These details are to be submitted to the Superintendent of Central Excise in Form ER-7. This return is to be filed by 30th day of April of the succeeding financial year. But for the year 2007-08, the said statement is to be filed by 30th October, 2008. Form ER-7 has been prescribed vide Notification No. 39/2008-CE (NT), dated 29.09.08.
   
This return aim at curbing the evasion in the industry and increase in revenue. But the installed capacity will not bring revenue for the government. But the utilization of the same will bring the revenue. In Era of global recession, these steps will prove fatal for the industry. It will increase the corruption only.
 

 

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