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: 21 Dec, 2009
Print   |    |  Comment

Drunken Exemption to Alcoholic Beverages

 

Drunken exemption to Alcoholic Beverages

Article written by: -

CA Pradeep Jain,

Anjali Bihani

Neetu Sukhwani

 

Entry 84 of the Union List of the Schedule VII read with clause 1 of Article 246 of the Constitution of India empowers Central Government with exclusive power to make laws in respect of Duties of excise on goods manufactured or produced in India except alcoholic liquors for human consumption, opium, Indian hemp and other narcotic drugs and narcotics etc., Thus, the Central Government does not have power to levy Central Excise duty on Alcoholic liquors. So Chapter 22 of the Central Excise Tariff which covers Beverages, Spirits & Vinegar excludes “Alcoholic liquor for human consumption” through Chapter note; leading to conclusion that alcoholic beverages are non excisable goods.

As nothing was leviable under the Central Excise Act in respect of alcoholic beverages; the power in this respect being vested with State, government resorted to Finance Act, 1994 in order to compensate loss of revenue by somehow bringing it under the purview of taxable services. Better to have service tax in lieu of no excise revenue. A beginning step towards this was made by issuing Board Circular 249/1/2006 dated 27.10.2008 levy of service tax on production of alcoholic beverages on job work basis thereby clarifying that if the Contract Bottling Units CBUs undertook complete process of manufacture of alcoholic beverage under the ‘contract bottling arrangement’ as described above then such activity would not fall under the taxable service, namely the BAS. However, in case the activity undertaken by the CBU falls short of the definition of manufacture (such as activity of ‘packing’ or ‘labelling’ alone) then such activity would fall within its ambit and would be charged to service tax.

Moreover, the Hon’ble M.P. High Court in case of Maa Sharda Wine Traders v/s Union of India [2009 (15) S.T.R. 3 (M.P.)] has held that the bottling of alcoholic beverages amounts to manufacture and as such the service tax is no applicable. It was held as under:-

Packaging service - Bottling - Manufacture - Bottling of liquor - Whether bottling of liquor amounts to manufacture or only packaging so as to attract Service tax - Statutory definition of packaging activity excluding manufacturing process as defined in Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Manufacturing process not necessarily includes excisable goods but also includes process incidental or ancillary to completion of manufactured product - Dissection of tender conditions, invoices and pricing by Division Bench decision in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 723 (M.P.) not correct - Bottling is part of manufacturing process - C.B.E. & C. Circular clarifying manufacturing process in respect of bottling and bottling taken out of Service tax net - Statutory stipulation that liquor to be sold in bottles - Packaging and bottling of liquor being covered under manufacture, not liable to Service tax - Section 65(76b) of Finance Act, 1994 - Section 2(f) ibid. [paras 2, 15, 17, 31, 32, 33]

Further, Service tax is levied under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 on taxable service namely ‘business auxiliary services’ specified in sub-clause (zzb) of clause 105 of section 65 of the Finance Act. BAS basically covers those activities which are in relation to promotion or marketing or sale of goods, customer care service, procurement of goods or services, etc. but job work also comes under its scope because of the amended clause which reads “production or processing of goods for, or on behalf of, the client.

The service tax can be levied only when job work does not amounts to manufacture of goods but if the job work amount to manufacture then the service tax is not payable. Here, the word ‘manufacture’ has been used rather than ‘production or produce’. Produce word has a wider meaning because it covers manufacture, make, create, cause to happen or exist in its scope of meaning.

Earlier there was no condition that to avail exemption or to escape from service tax liability, the process should result in manufacture of excisable goods but through the amendment in the Budget,  it was cleared that exemption would be entitled  to such process  which would  result in manufacture of excisable goods. Thus, non excisable goods were kept out of scope of exemption.  Alcoholic beverages as non excisable goods remained under the clutches of service tax liability. This was also clarified by TRU letter also. The relevant part of TRU letter read as under:-

“Modification in Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) [section 65(19)]: It may be recalled that production or processing of goods for or on behalf of a client falls within the purview of this service. However, if any such activity amounts to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, the same is excluded from its purview. This exclusion has been modified to state that it would apply only if the activity results in manufacture of ‘excisable goods’. Both the words/phrases i.e. ‘manufacture’ and ‘excisable goods’ would have the same meaning as defined under the Central Excise Act. The impact of this change would be that even if a process of manufacture is undertaken for the client, but the resultant product does not fall under the category of excisable goods, such as alcoholic beverages, the service tax would be attracted. Certain other goods which would also fall under BAS on account of the proposed change would be kept outside the tax net by way of exemption notification, to be issued at the appropriate time. This levy came into effect from the date notified by the Government i.e. September 1, 2009.”

Thereafter the budget was passed by Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha and approval was granted by the president to the budget. Thus, the budget was enacted. The service tax was applicable on job work of non excisable goods from September 1, 2009 though it amounted to manufacture. Thus, the intention of the Government to impose service tax on alcoholic beverages has come true.

But later on the exemption was given to the alcoholic beverages through Notification No. 39/2009-Service Tax dated 23rd September, 2009.   

The Notification reads as below: 

“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the taxable service specified in sub-clause (zzb) of clause 105 of section 65 of the Finance Act, provided by a person ( hereinafter called the ‘service provider’) to any other person ( hereinafter called the ‘service receiver’) during the course of manufacture or processing of alcoholic beverages by the service provider, for or on behalf of the service receiver, from so much of value which is equivalent to the value of inputs, excluding capital goods, used for providing the same service, subject to the following conditions, namely:-

a) that no Cenvat credit has been taken under the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004;

b) that there is documentary proof specifically indicating the value of such inputs; and

c) where the service provider also manufactures or processes alcoholic beverages, on his or her own account or in a manner or under an arrangement other than as mentioned aforesaid, he or she shall maintain separate accounts of receipt, production, inventory, dispatches of goods as well as financial transactions relating thereto.”

The exemption notification was applicable from 23 Sept. 09 onwards. Thus, the service tax was applicable for the period from 1.09.2009 to 23.09.09, service tax was levied on manufacture or processing of alcoholic beverages.

But the Government did not intend to levy the service tax during this period also and hence the retrospective exemption was given for the period  September 1, 2009 to September 22, 2009 through Notification no. 43/2009-Service Tax dated  2nd December, 2009 which reads as below :

  “ Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that a practice was generally prevalent regarding levy of service tax ( including non-levy thereof ), under section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 ( 32 of 1994) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act), on taxable service namely ‘business auxiliary services’ specified in sub-clause (zzb) of clause 105 of section 65 of the Finance Act provided by a person ( hereinafter called the ‘service provider’) to any other person ( hereinafter called the ‘service receiver’) during the course of manufacture or processing of alcoholic beverages by the service provider, for or on behalf of the service receiver, and that such services being a taxable service were liable to service tax under the said sub-clause (zzb) of clause 105 of section 65 of the Finance Act with effect from 1st day of September 2009, which was not being levied according to the said  practice during the period commencing from the 1st day of September, 2009 and ending with the 22nd day of September, 2009;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 11 C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with section 83 of the Finance Act, the Central government hereby directs that the service tax payable on the said taxable service, namely ‘business auxiliary service’ provided by the service provider to the service receiver, during the course of manufacture or processing of alcoholic beverages by the service provider, for or on behalf of the service receiver, which was not being levied in accordance with the said practice, shall not be required to be paid in respect of  such business auxiliary service provided during the aforesaid period. (F. No. 332/17/2009 – TRU)”

The Exemption Notification no. 39 /2009 has made  alcoholic beverages free from service tax liability from 23.9.09 onwards that means before this, they were under the scope of service tax liability along with the other  non excisable goods but due to other retrospective exemption notification no. 43/2009, only alcoholic beverages got benefit of exemption. Other non excisable goods are still under the scope of service tax.  

The government has not considered all aspects properly while adding the condition that the process should result in manufacture of excisable goods so as to bring non excisable goods under Service Tax net through the amendment. All non excisable goods have come under the ambit of service tax. This amendment had affected all kinds of non excisable goods which was not intended by the government at the time of bringing the amendment. Non excisable goods like handicraft products, electricity, etc. are in the same position because no notification has been there except for alcoholic beverages. 

 

The scenario truly reflects ambiguous functioning of the government. The Government functions like this i.e. amendments are done; notifications are issued etc. without considering outcomes of the same. If the suggestions of all concerned persons were taken before imposition then this valuable time of Parliament, all concerned officers would not have been wasted and rather would have resulted in a more orderly framework of legislation requiring less alteration. Earlier it was done for levy of transport of goods by rail and later on it was done for alcoholic beverages. The Hindi proverb rightly fits for the same “ढ़ाक के तीन पात” or काता पीता सब कपास हो गया.  

 

Before parting we can say that as it is truly said that “the name has its own impact”, the same has been proved in the situation given above. The name “ALCOHOL” had left its drunken impact on the Government functioning which resulted in retrospective exemptions on Alcoholic Beverages. The situation connotes that in this complete scenario of introducing the liability of tax and thereafter bringing a retrospective exemption on alcoholic beverages the Government behaved like a drunken men who don’t know what he is doing and what was to be done.

 

*-*-*-*-*

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