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: 14 Jul, 2014
Print   |    |  Comment

Colors of ambiguity still on Heena

Colors of ambiguity still on Heena

An article by:-

CA. Pradeep Jain
Prayushi Jain
 

There was dispute was going on between the trade and the Central excise department on the exemption on Heena Paste. This exemption was given in last year budget but there was ambiguity in drafting on such notification. We have written an article on the this issue  just after the presentation of the budget. Now the Government has come with the clarification in the next budget. This article tries to analysis this issue.
The history:-
The notification no. 12/2012-CE dated 1.3.2012 exempted the Henna powder not mixed with any other ingredient” by its entry number 134. In next year budget, this entry was amended by notification 12/2013 and heena paste was also exempted. But the entry read as follow:-
 
S. No. Chapter or
heading or
sub-heading or
tariff item of
the First
Schedule
Description
of excisable goods
Rate Condition
No.
66. 33 Henna powder or  paste, not mixed with any other ingredient 8% -
 
Thus the aforesaid entry exempted the Heena paste but the word "not mixed with any other ingredient" also travelled with the Heena paste. It was pointed out by us at that time also that heena paste cannot be made without adding the liquid into the powder. But the department will view it as mixing other ingredient into it. But no clarification was issued by the CBEC at that time.
Later on, the audit wing raised the audit objection on the same lines. The demand of lakhs of Rupees was issued to the manufacturers. Pleading was made that if such interpretation was taken then the benefit of this notification will not extended to any manufacturer. Following the Rule of homogenous construction, the benefit of this notification should be allowed.  However, the department was of stringent in view that there should be no ingredient in the henna paste which at no stretch of imagination was possible.
The post budget era:-
In this budget 2014, a clarification was issued by the department which read as follows:-
 
The clarification given by the budget, 2014 would have given relief to the poor manufacturers of heena paste which finally were exempted of tax if the powder is mixed with any liquid.  But the exclusion of powder mixed with heena dye and any other cosmetics again gave the birth to new dispute era. Revenue shall again allege the assessee those who mix heena dye in the powder or any other cosmetic will not be entitled to claim the exemption. For this purpose, the samples will be taken and will be given to CRCL. Unless and until  the report of the same is received, the manufacturer will not be allowed to clear the goods without payment of duty.
This Henna paste is very cheap selling marketable goods are of strong social values too:-
  • No social function is completed without the application of henna on the hands and feet – whether the function is of engagement, marriage, baby shower, etc.
 
  • When there is birth of any child at home, there is tradition of distributing the henna to all the neighborhood and relatives. This tradition is still alive in many parts of Rajasthan including Jodhpur. 
  • It is considered as a symbol of “akhand saubhagya” in Hindu culture and it is to be essentially applied hands and feet on various fasts like “karva chauth”, “gangaur”, “teej”, etc. It is even required during the pooja in these fasts.
  • It is an essentially to be there in the items of “pooja” of goddesses like laxmi, parvati, etc. In all the temples of these goddesses, henna is an important item which is applied on the hands and legs of statues of these deities, particularly on the festivals. 
  • No hawan/yagya is complete without applying henna.
  • It is applied by Indian girls and ladies on all the occasions and festivals. On the diwali pooja, it is considered customary to sit there with henna on the hands.
The application of henna is not merely limited to hindu culture, rather it is an essential part of muslim festivals like Eid-ul-Fitr and Eid-ul-Azha.
Nobody can afford to add any other dye or any other cosmetic value in such cheaper product.
However, again new round of litigations will start wherein revenue who has always taken up the legal language in the raw form and as it is. Now the department will allege every mixture as made of heena dye or of any of the cosmetic product. Further the cosmetic definition holds its own ambiguity in itself. Every mixture would be sent for testing in laboratories, paras would be raised and representations shall be made. It is the same battle but with dissimilar fuel. Not the least, even the Henna grown in different locations contain certain ingredients from the land itself but the same cannot separated. the department will term it as "other ingredient than liquid. But the manufacturer will say that these are not dye or an ingredient having cosmetic nature.
Winding up:-
Yes the government gave the clarification to the relief of heena manufacturer but with a half hearted approach. Heena is a cheap selling commodity carrying huge social implications as seen above which at no incidence should be brought in the ambit of service tax. The exemptions with if’s & but’s is not justifiable and should be completely be exempted from the tax.
 
 
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