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 Mar, 2012
Print   |    |  Comment

Dimming Sheen of Unbranded Precious Metal Jewellery

 Dimming Sheen of Unbranded Precious Metal Jewellery 

Prepared By:
CA Pradeep Jain
CA Preeti Parihar
Manish Vyas

The scheme of levy of excise duty on precious metal jewellery has been revamped. Hitherto excise duty of 1% was applicable to precious metal jewellery manufactured or sold under a brand name. The levy would now apply to both branded and unbranded goods (except silver jewellery) although at the same rate of duty of 2%. Full exemption from excise duty is being provided to silver jewellery.
 
Tariff Value
 
Duty would be chargeable on tariff value which is being prescribed under section 3 of theCentral Excise Act. Tariff value would be equal to 30% of the “transaction value” declared on the invoice and transaction value shall have the same meaning as assigned to it under section 4 of the Central Excise Act. This means that the 30% of sale bill amount will be treated as value for charging service tax.
 
SSI exemption:-
 
The benefit of SSI exemption would be available to manufacturers of precious metal jewellery and the aggregate value of clearances (both for the purpose of eligibility and exemption) would be computed on the basis of tariff value.
 
For Calculation of 4 Crore
 
The SSI exemption under notification 8/2003 is available to a manufacturer if the aggregate value of clearances for the last financial year is less than Rs. 4 crore. For the purpose of computing this value, the value exempted as well as dutiable goods will be considered. For the unit producing unbranded jewellery, who are not covered under Central Excise duty, the eligibility for year 2011-12 is to be determined. For claiming exemption for the period from 17.3.2012 to 31.3.2012, the aggregate value of clearances for the year 2010-11 is to be seen. If it is less than Rs. 4 crore then exemption for this period is available upto Rs. 1.5 crore. For calculating the limit of Rs. 1.5 crore, only dutiable goods has to be considered. As the clearances from 1.4.2011 to 17.3.2012 are exempt, hence they need to be considered. Hence, the full limit of 1.5 crore is available from 17.3.2012 to 31.3.2012.
 
Again for the purpose of determining eligibility of a manufacturer/ factory for SSI exemption for the year 2012-13, the computation of aggregate value of clearances of 4 Crore for the year 2011-12 is to be made. The clearances from 1.4.2012 to 16.3.2012 is to be considered. But for the clearances from 17.3.2012 to 31.3.2012, the tariff value of 30% of the transaction value and not full transaction value is to be considered.
 
Illustration-If a manufacturer X clears goods of value 1.4 crore till 16th March 2012, and from 17th March to 31st March 2012 manufacturer X clears goods of transaction value 30 lacs, the total value of clearances for SSI exemption in financial year 2011 -12 shall be calculated as follows:‑
 
Value of clearances from 1st April 2011 to 16th March 2012 = Rs. 1.4 crore
 
Value of clearances from 17th March to 31st March 2012= Rs. 9 lacs (30% of transaction value 30 lacs)
 
Total value of clearances financial year 2011-12 = Rs. 1 .49 crore
 
Job Work
 
The option to the job-worker to register has been deleted. Now every person who gets articles of jewellery of heading no.7113 produced or manufactured on job-work shall obtain registration, maintain accounts, pay duty leviable on such goods and comply with the procedural requirements, as if he is the manufacturer. In other words, those artisans or goldsmiths who only manufacture jewellery for others on job-work need not obtain registration. The person supplying the goods to be manufactured has to take the registration and file returns as well as pay duty. He has to send the material to job worker under job worker procedure.
 
Other Changes
 
Full exemption from excise duty is being provided to branded silver jewellery. In respect of articles of precious metals, the levy would continue to apply only to those articles that are manufactured or sold under a brand name. Full exemption from excise duty has been provided to gold coins of purity 99.5% and above and silver coins of purity 99.9% and above when manufactured from gold or silver on which the appropriate duty of customs or excise has been paid.
 
Excise duty on refined gold manufactured starting from the stage of ore, concentrate or dore bars has been increased from 1.5% to 3%. The same rate has been prescribed for refined gold produced from the smelting of copper. Refined silver obtained from the smelting of copper shall henceforth attract excise duty of 4%.
 
Excise duty on gold jewellery sold from EOUs into DTA has been increased from 5% to 10%.
 
Conclusion
 
The exemption to manufacturing of unbranded Jewellery has been waived but the concept of tariff value (30% of transaction value) has been introduced for levy of tax on unbranded jewellery. Now the duty will be leviable on tariff value. The intention of government is to covers maximum products as possible under the levy of excise duty.  
 
But the thing is that the prices of precious metals are sky rocking and this will add fuel to fire. This will be going out of reach of most of the persons. The time will tell whether this levy will take away the sheen of this precious metal.

Comments

  • Pranay Kothari on 27 March, 2012 wrote:

    Sir I have read your Artcile its quite comprehensively covers the issue. However some clerical errors have creeped in please do rectify these errors: 1)In the third line the rate should be 1% 2) Again for the purpose of determining eligibility ...........In this para the second line date should be 1.4.2011 and not 1.4.2012

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