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: 01 Mar, 2016
Print   |    |  Comment

EXCISE DUTY STUDDED ON JEWELLERY BY BUDGET, 2016

EXCISE DUTY STUDDED ON JEWELLERY BY BUDGET, 2016

An article by:-
CA. Pradeep Jain
CA. Preeti Parihar

 

Introduction:-

It is the most expensive amendment ever… Yes, now by virtue of amendments made by Budget, 2016; excise duty is being levied on articles of jewellery [excluding silver jewellery, other than studded with diamonds/other precious stones]. Thus, all the jewellery items except pure silver jewellery will now be subject to excise duty w.e.f. 1.3.2016. This article is about the changes brought by the recent budget with respect to jewellery.
 
Separate Threshold:-
Notification no. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003 which prescribes the threshold exemption for the small scale manufacturers have been amended to incorporate the separate threshold for jewellery.  According to amendments made, if the turnover of jeweler does not exceed Rs. 12 crores in previous financial year, no excise duty will be payable upto clearance of Rs. 6 crores in current financial year. In other words, jewellery manufacturer having aggregate value of clearances in a financial year exceeding Rs. 12 crore, will not be eligible for this threshold exemption in the subsequent financial year. Since the excise duty is to be levied w.e.f. 1.3.2016; the proportionate SSI exemption of Rs. 50 lacs has been fixed for the month of March. This exemption shall be available only if value of clearances for home consumption from one or more manufacturer from one or more factory or premises of production or manufacture during the financial year 2014-15 did not exceed Rs. 12 crores.
 
Amendment in Notification no. 12/2012-CE:-
Entry no. 199 to the notification no. 12/2012-CE allowed the exemption to all types of jewellery items falling under tariff heading 7113. This notification has been amended vide notification no. 12/2016-CE dated 1.3.2016 and now excise duty @ 1% is leviable on articles of jewellery provided no Cenvat Credit is taken under provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, exemption already available to articles of silver jewellery, other than those studded with diamond, ruby, emerald or sapphire is being continued. The effect being that all types of jewellery items except pure silver jewellery are now subject to excise duty @ 1% provided facility of Cenvat Credit is not availed.
 
Options regarding Rates of excise duty:-
If the benefit of notification no. 12/2012-CE is not availed, the excise duty @ 12.5% can be paid with Cenvat facility. Thus, the two options are being given to jewelers:–
·       Excise duty of 1% (without CENVAT credit); or
·       12.5% (with CENVAT credit.
 
Procedure to be followed:-
A simplified procedure has been prescribed for this purpose which is being explained as follows:-
·       For claiming the SSI exemption by jewelers, CA certificate on the basis of books of accounts for financial 2014- 15 will be required. For determining the eligibility for availing of the SSI exemption from 2016-17 onward also, CA certificate will be sufficient.
·       Jewellery produced on or before 29.02.2016 but lying in stock as on 29.02.2016 will attract excise duty at the time of clearance.
·       To claim the Cenvat Credit, CA certificate will be required on the stock declaration of finished goods, goods-in-process and inputs as on 29.02.2016. However, no stock declaration will be required to be made to the jurisdictional central excise authorities.
·       Registration will be granted within two working days from the date of application.
·       Documents maintained by the jewellery manufacturers for State VAT or Bureau of Indian Standards (in the case of hallmarked jewellery) shall be accepted for Excise purposes also.
·       The private records of the jewellery manufacturers, giving details of daily stock for his own purposes, shall be accepted for the purposes of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules 2002.
·       Option of centralized excise registration for jewellery manufacturers with centralized billing or accounting system is also being given.
·       Jewellery manufacturers will be eligible for a simplified return applicable for optional excise duty of 1%/2% without CENVAT credit under notification No.1/2011-CE.
·       The duty liability will be on the person who gets articles of jewellery made from the job worker, thus, all the excise formalities will have to be carried out by him rather than job worker.
The above are the simple steps to be taken by the jewelers for getting registered and to help them overcome the difficulties faced during transitional period.
 
Special provision for returned goods:-
TRU letter issued vide D.O.F. no. 338/8/2016-TRU dated 29.2.2016 states that full exemption from Central Excise duty will be available to duty-paid goods returned to the manufacturer during a financial year. This exemption will be allowed up to a limit of 10% of the value of clearances for home consumption made in the preceding financial year. However, following conditions shall have to be satisfied:-
1.    An intimation within 48 hours of the receipt of the returned goods is to be submitted to department about the value of returned goods received in his factory/registered premises;
2.    Proper accounts/record of the receipt, finishing operations, and dispatch of returned stock indicating the monthly and cumulative value of the returned stock received during the financial year shall be required to be maintained.
 This facility has been provided since it is a common practice in this industry that the duty-paid stock cleared to the wholesale dealer/retailer on consignment basis that remains unsold is returned to the manufacturer either at the end of the season or from time to time. Such returned goods are cleared either as such or after re-finishing operations to another wholesaler or retailer for sale (often at reduced prices). The re-finishing operations could involve cleaning, ironing, re-folding, repacking or relabeling, some of which constitute “manufacture” in terms of the relevant Chapter Notes. This facility obviates the need to pay excise duty twice on the same goods.
 
While winding:-
At last, the jewellery has been brought under excise net. It will perhaps bring a lot of revenue to Government particularly in the Country where buying the jewellery is treated as customary on the various occasions. However, at the same time, the chances of litigation on this levy are on much higher side and may face ignition by the various jewelers associations’.
 

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