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: 03 Mar, 2015
Print   |    |  Comment

Exemption to E Cess & SHE Cess- Really Lucrative?

Exemption to E Cess & SHE Cess- Really Lucrative?

An article by:
CA Pradeep Jain,
CA Neetu Sukhwani &
Somya Jain

Right from the common man to the corporates and foreign investors, where everyone was expecting the government to deliver a reform-oriented Budget, but the changes proposed in the Budget announced by the Hon’ble Finance Minister took all the hopes in vain. Even before the cheer over the raising of tax exemption limit could have died down, Budget 2015 delivered a staggering blow by hiking the rate of service tax from 12.36% (including Education Cess and SHE Cess) to 14%. Likewise, the rate of excise duty was increased from 12.36% (including Education Cess and SHE Cess) to a consolidated rate of 12.5%. Not only this, Swatch Bharat Cess of 2% on the value of taxable services has been proposed thereby leading to service tax rate to be 16%. In order to calm down the temper of the declared hike in the excise and service tax rates, the government gave “so called relief” by exempting the levy of Education Cess and SHE cess. The Education Cesslevied under section 91 read with section 93 of the Finance Act, 2004 on excise duty is being fully exempted vide notification no. 14/2015-CE dated 01.03.2015. Similarly, SHE Cess leviable under section 136 read with section 138 of the Finance Act, 2007 on excise duty is also being fully exempted vide notification no. 15/2015-CE dated 01.03.2015. However, with respect to Education Cess and SHE Cess levied on service tax under section 95 of the Finance Act, 2004 and section 140 of the Finance Act, 2007, the same will cease to have effect from a date to be notified by the Government. Not only this, the TRU Letter dated 28.02.2015 also clarifies that till the time the revised rates comes into effect, the ‘Education Cess’ and ‘SHE Cess’ will continue to be levied in service tax. It is worth noting that the Education Cess and SHE Cess in Customs is not being exempted. Consequently, there is no final “Bye Bye” to Education Cess and SHE Cess. It is submitted that providing exemption to levy of Education Cess and SHE Cess all of a sudden, that too, with respect to Excise and Service Tax only leaves many questions that remain unanswered and will only lead to litigation in days to come.
Whether credit balance available as on 01.03.2015 to lapse?First and foremost question that arises in the minds of the assessees is that what will be the fate of the credit balance of Education Cess and SHE Cess pertaining to excise duty lying with them as on 01.03.2015 because the exemption to Education Cess and SHE Cess of excise duty is applicable w.e.f. 01.03.2015. There is no express provision as regards the lapse of balance of credit available with the manufacturers or the provision of its utilisation in future or its refund in the Budget provisions. Moreover, the credit of Education Cess can be utilised only for payment of Education Cess and likewise, the credit of SHE Cess can be utilised only for payment of SHE Cess. Consequently, the balance of cenvat credit of Education Cess and SHE cess available with the manufacturers will become a “sheer cost” unless and until a clarification as regards disposal of the available cenvat credit balance of Education Cess and SHE Cess is issued by the government. One view that may be taken is that the balance of Education Cess and SHE Cess may be retained by the manufacturers and may be used if any demand is fastened against them for the prior period in future. Alternatively, one may also view that the intention of the government is to grant temporary exemption to the levy of Education Cess and SHE Cess because there is no such exemption with respect to Customs duty and also, the government could have abolished it altogether instead of granting exemption from its levy.
Credit eligibility on transit goods as well as on input services:-  Supposing the goods are dispatched on February 27 and received in the factory of manufacturer in the month of March. The Education cess and SHE cess will be charged on the same. But the credit will not be available as there is no Education cess and SHE cess leviable on the final product. Similarly the education cess and SHE cess is payable on service tax. It will be discontinued on the date notified after the enactment of budget. But the credit of the same will not be available to manufacturers. This will add to cost of their goods.  
Whether discrimination between excise and service tax assessees proper?It is further submit that with the gap created in the grant of exemption of Education Cess and SHE Cess on excise duty and that on service tax to be applicable on a date to be notified later, the government has put the service providers at a relatively advantageous position than the manufacturer assessees. This is for the reason that the Education Cess and SHE Cess will be continued to be levied until the new service tax rates are effective and so the service providers will continue to utilise their credit balance till notified date. However, if we talk of manufacturer assessees that avail input services, they will have to bear additional cost of Education Cess and SHE Cess levied on input services availed by them because they would be unable to utilise the same. But, the manufacturer who is service provider also will be saved from the absurd situation. This will be termed as step towards GST or step away from GST where the rates of service tax and excise are different and credit provisions will also apply differently for both of them.
Whether reversal under Rule 6(3)(i) of 6% still proper in light of hike in duties?It is submitted that when the issue of availment of credit of inputs/input services commonly used by assessee is considered, it is found that the government seeks to deny the cenvat credit attributable to inputs/input services that are used in the manufacture of exempted goods or provision of exempted services. Moreover, if the present provisions of credit reversal as contained in Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are pursued, they warranted approximately 50% of the credit reversal because the rate of duty of excise and service tax was 12%. Consequently, the credit reversal under Rule 6(3)(i) was 6%. However, when the government has hiked the service tax rate to 14% (effectively 16% as there is 2% Swatch Bharat Cess) and has also hiked excise duty to 12.5%, then whether the rate of credit reversal of 6% will be proper or not is also another question that the government appears to have skipped.
How to apportion duties under Pan Masala Rules for the purpose of claiming abatement?Another question that has arisen in the minds of the assessees working under compound levy scheme is that how the abatement amount will be apportioned under various heads of duties. As it is known that in compound levy scheme, a fixed amount of duty is paid which is apportioned in the specified ratio under different categories of duties. With this budget, the apportionment under Education Cess and SHE Cess has been specified as “0”. However, for claiming the amount of abatement for the prior period, the manner of computation will be highly debatable and will be prone to litigation. In abatement, no cash refund is allowed but the manufacturer is allowed to adjust the duty in ensuing months. If so, the department will allow the abatement of education cess and SHE cess but it cannot be adjusted as there is Education cess and SHE cess on final product now. So, refund of the same in cash should be allowed.
Whether assessees claiming benefit of Notification no. 01/2011 and 2/2011 benefitted?It is also worth observing that although the rate of excise duty has been hiked from 12.36% (Including Cesses) to 12.5% (without cess) but the assessees availing the benefit of concessional rate of duties as contained in Notification no. 1/2011 and 2/2011 will pay 2% and 6% duty instead of 2.06% and 6.18%. Hence, it can be said that they have been benefitted by the exemption from Education Cess and SHE Cess granted by the government.
Manufacturers of stainless steel patta patti :- The manufacturers of Stainless steel patta patti are working under special procedure under notification 17/2007 and paying duty in advance. They have already paid duty, education cess and SHE cess for the month of March 2015. But there is no education cess and SHE cess for the month of March 2015. The only remedy for them is to claim refund of the same. But claiming refund of small amount of Rs. 1200/- per month and to clear the doctrine of unjust enrichment is a big hurdle.
Before parting:-Before concluding, we wish to submit that one of our suggestions in our Article titled:- “BUDGET 2015: STEPPING STONE TO SIMPLIFIATION?” was that there should be a single rate of tax so that the requirement of maintaining separate cenvat credit balances of Education Cess, SHE Cess is dispensed with which appears to have been considered by the government. However, the back door route of providing exemption has made the amendment prone to litigation. Moreover, It is submitted that on one hand, the new government is making earnest efforts to introduce and implement GST, which is a unified tax measure that is aimed at streamlining the different rates of service tax and excise duties to one consolidated rate of tax and has made promises to implement GST by April, 2016. However, on the other hand, the amendments proposed in the Budget seeks to create greater disparity between the rates of excise duties and the service tax. The effective rate of excise duty has been declared as 12.5% while the effective rate of service tax has been made 16%. The assessees expected a budget with changes that facilitate in introducing the unified tax reform GST but on the contrary, it seems that the implementation of GST is a remote possibility in the coming years. 

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