Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Publish Date: 01 Mar, 2011
Print   |    |  Comment

Branded Goods - Stitched to Excise Duty

BRANDED GOODS – STITCHED TO EXCISE DUTY

Prepared By:
CA.Pradeep Jain
CA. Preeti Parihar
CA. Rajani Thanvi

 

Introduction:-
 
Major amendments have been brought in Ready made garments and made-up articles through the budget 2011-12. These goods fall under chapter 61 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Earlier these goods were exempted vide serial no. 16 of Notification no. 30/2004-CE dt. 09.07.2004. The entry at this serial no. exempted all the goods falling in chapter 61 subject to the condition of non availment of cenvat credit on inputs. This notification is amended vide notification no. 12/2011-CE dated 1.3.2011 the impact of which is that after budget, only those goods of chapter 61 will be exempted that neither bear the brand name nor are sold under the brand name. Further new Notification no. 1/2011-CE dated 1.3.2011 and Notification no. 2/2011-CE dated 1.3.2011 have also not prescribed any exemption for the same. Thus, the impact of this amendment is that no exemption is there and no specific rate of duty is prescribed for these items. Hence these will be taxable at normal rate of duty i.e. 10% advalorem. The whole situation can be noted in following manner:- 

Position before Budget:-
 
Prior to the budget the goods classified under chapter 61, 62 and 63 were exempted from levy of excise duty and the option to pay duty was there for the goods of cotton, not containing any other textile material. 

  • Exemption to the goods falling under chapter 61, 62 and 63:-Earlier in the notification no. 30/2004-CE dt. 19.07.2004 the exemption was provided to all goods falling under the chapter 61, 62 and 63 (except 63090000 and 6310). Further the notification also disallowed the cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in manufacturing of these goods. Hence there was no any excise duty on the aforementioned goods irrespective to the fact that whether these were bearing any brand name and or sold under a brand name or not. 
  • Option to go for exemption or pay duty:- Further the option to pay duty or avail exemption was also available with the assessee with regard to the aforementioned goods. The notification no. 29/2004-CE dt. 19.07.2004 provides 4% duty on all the goods of cotton falling under chapter 61, 62 and 63, not containing any other textile material. This notification was also applicable to all the goods including those bearing brand name or sold under a brand name. Thus, the manufacturer of branded goods made up of cotton had an option to avail either exemption vide notification no. 30/2004-CE and not to avail any cenvat credit or pay 4% duty vide notification no. 29/2004-CE with the benefit of availment of cenvat credit. 

Position after Budget:

  • Taxability of branded cloths:-  In the present budget the exemption of excise duty is removed on aforementioned goods having brand name or are sold under a brand name. Now the exemption on branded cloths has been removed vide notification no. 12/2011-CE dt. 01.03.2011. The provision of concessional rate of duty on these goods is also removed vide notification no. 11/2011-CE dt. 01.03.2011. Now the aforementioned goods falling under chapter 61, 62 and 63 having brand name or are sold under a brand name are under the tax net without any option to pay concessional duty or any exemption. The benefits of availment of cenvat credit will be available in this case. 
  • Option lies for non branded specified items:- But the older provision to pay concessional rate of duty or availing exemption still lies for the goods which does not possess any brand name or also not sold under any brand name. Hence the optional duty regime will be continued for non branded clothes/garments. 
  • Person liable to pay duty: - In normal trade practice as prevalent for garments, many times the goods are get manufactured from the job worker. Central Excise Rules, 2002 have been amended and rule 4(1A) is inserted which says that the person who is getting the goods (falling in chapter 61, 62 & 63) manufactured from job worker will be liable to pay the duty and comply with Excise rules and regulations. However, burden of the same can also be shifted to the job worker and in such case he will be liable to comply with the Rules and regulations. Thus, the manufacturer of the branded goods who gets the goods manufactured on job work will also be covered under this clause. Now the option is available for payment of duty i.e either the job worker or the brand owner can pay the duty. But in trade, it is told to us some manufacturers procures their own inputs and manufacture the branded goods for brand owner and sells them. In that case, these manufacturers will be liable to duty and they cannot shift their burden to brand owner. 

Now the next question is that if the job worker does not fix the brand name and it is done by brand owner himself. This question is being asked by the many people in the industry. In this situation, the mandatory excise duty will be on brand owner only as fixing of brand name will amount to manufacture. We are discussing this point in depth in this article. Further, the mandatory duty is not applicable to unbranded garments.

  • SSI Exemption:-As per Notification no. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003; the SSI exemption is given to the manufacturer of the dutiable goods. On the other hand, as per rule 4(1A); liability to pay duty has been shifted to other person. Accordingly, notification no. 8/2003 has been amended vide notification no. 8/2011-CE dated 1.3.2011 and in case rule 4(1A) is applicable, the person liable to pay the duty (i.e. the principle manufacturer/ supplier) will be deemed to the manufacturer for the purpose of SSI exemption under Notification no. 8/2003-CE. Thus, now even if the goods are manufactured by the job worker who is actual manufacturer, the benefit of SSI exemption will be given to the person liable to pay the excise duty in terms of rule 4(1A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 

The basic clause is that the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods in preceding financial year should be less than Rs. 4 crore then exemption will be available. For this purpose, all excisable goods whether dutiable or exempted is to be seen. Now, for the month of March 2011, the year 2009-10 is to be seen. If the aggregate value of clearances is less than Rs. 4 crore in year 2009-10 then exemption of 1.5 crore is available. For computing these 1.5 crore, only dutiable goods is to be seen. This limit of Rs. 1.5 crore will be available for March 2011 as the goods cleared prior to March 2011 were exempted and will not be considered in calculating the same. Thus, the exemption is available in March 2011 also.
 
Now the next question is whether the exemption is available to brand owner as well as to job workers. It can be said that this is available to both of them. But if we go through the conditions of notification then it is available to brand owner only. If the job worker clears the goods having brand name of other person then the SSI exemption is not available to him. Hence, the exemption is available when the brand owner decides to pay the duty. But the limit of Rs. 4 crore in preceding financial year is very small for a brand owner. Thus, practically speaking , SSI exemption is not applicable to either job worker or brand owner.

  • Definition of deemed manufacturing is amended:- The activities of labeling or re-labeling or affixing a brand name was already covered under the process of manufacturing regarding knitted or crocheted fabrics and Articles of apparel and clothing accessories, knitted or crocheted. But these processes were not deemed as manufacture for the goods of other made up textile articles, sets, worn clothing and worn textile articles, rags etc. Now from the Budget, 2011; a chapter note is included for these articles also. The effect of this amendment is that even where these goods are sent to job workers for the purpose of re-labeling or affixing a brand name, this activity will amount to manufacture and provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules made thereunder would apply. Thus, in the cases, where the goods are made ups of textile articles, sets, worn clothing and worn textile articles, rags, etc. and only brand name is affixed at the place of brand owner then it will amount to manufacture and he has to pay the duty. This point is being asked in the industry and we have replied in this article that if the brand owner fixes the brand name on clothes then the liability to pay duty will be on the brand owner only. 
  • Tariff Value:- The tariff value for charging duty on readymade garments and textile made-ups falling under chapter 61 to 63 is fixed @ 60% of the retail sale price. This has been done vide notification no. 7/2011-CE(NT) dated 1.3.2011 which amends notification no. 20/2001-CE(NT). Now the duty of 10% will be payable on the assessable value which will be 60% of the retail sale price for the branded clothes. Thus, there is no dispute as regards valuation. Rule 10A will not come into picture even if the duty is paid by job worker. 

While parting:-
 
In a nutshell it can be said that for unbranded goods, an optional duty regime would continue but the branded goods will become dutiable @10%.  Also the Labeling and brand name on products would attract a duty. Earlier the assessees were paying duty voluntarily but now it is mandatory to pay duty on the branded clothes. Non-branded garments makers will get excise duty exemption if they have not availed facility of duty credit on inputs. Now the assessees who are manufacturing branded garments have to avail cenvat credit on inputs and to clear the goods after payment of 10% Excise Duty. But as the notifications no. 29 and 30/2004 is lying with the supplier of inputs the duty amount charged by the supplier will be either NIL or at concessional rate i.e. 4%. Consecutively he has to avail cenvat credit of 4% or NIL (not available if Notification no. 30/2004-CE opted) and has to clear the branded garments at 10% rate of duty. This will disturb the cenvat credit chain. These amendments can only be beneficial to those large scale manufacturers who are having the manufacturing facility of the garments from the very first input i.e. cotton, yarn to garments as finished goods.  

But the other branded goods manufacturer will try to pursue the textile processing units and grey manufacturers to avail cenvat credit and pay duty so that they can also claim cenvat credit. Will it lead to textile industry coming in tax net again? Let us wait and time will tell.

 
************

Comments

  • AJAY GUPTA on 05 March, 2011 wrote:

    Kindly clarify that if a branded manufacturer does not print mrp on garment & say sell goods on a price to the buyer. Then the buyer who is retailer himself mark the price. this is common in garment industry. every retailes fixes the mrp on its own margin & manufacturer only sell its own price.
  • Natarajan on 03 March, 2011 wrote:

    Kindly clarify whether an manufacturer of branded or unbranded cotton garments would be liable for excise duty as per notification 11/2011

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