Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

Comments

Publish Date: 02 Jul, 2016
Print   |    |  Comment

IMPORT AT CONCESSIONAL RATE OF DUTY – AIM OF AMENDMENT NOT ACHIEVED

­­IMPORT AT CONCESSIONAL RATE OF DUTY – AIM OF AMENDMENT NOT ACHIEVED

 

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

 
Introduction 
New Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2016 have come into force w.e.f. 1.4.2016. The old rules were superseded with these rules with an aim to simplify the procedural formalities. As of now, three months have passed since the implementation of new rules, but the target of “procedural simplification” has not been achieved. This article is an insight about the aims of new rules and current status of the said aims.
 
Comparision of new and old rules
A comparision of the changes made by new rules and their rationale is discussed as follows:-
1.     In the old rules, there was requirement of taking the new registration from AC/DC of Central Excise if the benefit of these rules is to be availed. However, the new rules omit the requirement of separate registration if the manufacturer is already registered with AC/DC of Central Excise which is a big relaxation given to the importer manufacturers.
2.     In the old rules the intimation of import was countersigned by the AC/DC of Central Excise which was to be submitted to the AC/DC of Customs. However, in the new rules, the import intimation is to be filed to AC/DC of Central excise in duplicate who will forward one copy to the AC/DC of customs at the port of importation.
3.     The new rules reduces the time limit for re-export of the unutilised or defective imported goods from 6 months to 3 months
4.     The new rules specify that the defective or unutilized imported goods may be cleared on payment of differential import duty along with interest at specified rates.
5.     The new rules provide that the AC/DC of Central Excise may require the importer to furnish security also which was not provided in the old rules.
Out of the above stated amendments, the second one, i.e. the condition pertaining to import intimation is the crucial one and amendment done in its procedure does not give relaxation to the importers.
 
Intimation of import – procedural simplification
Every time the import is done under the provisions of these rules, an intimation of import is to be filed to AC/DC of Central Excise. This intimation is countersigned by him and this countersigned copy is to be forwarded by the importer to AC/DC of Customs at the time of import. It is on the basis of this countersigned copy that the benefit of these rules read with respective exemption notification is allowed. As per the new rules, the importer is not required to forward the countersigned copy to customs department. The importer’s work ends with submitting the intimation of import in duplicate to the Excise Department. It is the Excise department which is supposed to send the copy signed by its AC/DC to the AC/DC of customs department. In other words, the movement of intimation has been made inter-departmental transfer by virtue of newly substituted rules.
 
Aim of amendment fails here
Government has brought the new rules to simplify the procedure of filing the import intimation. However, the practical situation is still the same. The importers are still forced to take away the countersigned copy of intimation and file the same to custom department. The excise department is not showing any interest in sending the intimation to customs department. Initially when the new rules were implemented, the importers were relaxed that they need not bother about the countersigned copy of import intimation. However, at the time of import, they were harassed on knowing that the procedure laid down under new rules is not being followed. Ultimately, the importers themselves had to arrange for the countersigned copy of the import intimation from the excise department and it was then submitted to the customs department. Thus, due to non-co-operation of both the departments, the importers are forced to follow the old practice and procedure laid down in the old rules despite fact that the new rules does not speak about the same. Due to this, it seems that the substitution of old rules with new ones has become a futile exercise due to non co-operation of relevant departmental officers.
 
While parting
It is quite clear that the intention of the government has been to ease the procedure and paper work to be followed by the importer. Although the new rules have come in force but in practical life, it seems that ease of doing business is still a long fetched dream. This is clearly visible by the existing situation in the governmental departments. The government spends a large amount on research and makes suitable amendments in order to simplify the procedures. However, the entire exercise of government and expectations of trade are bounced back due to negligence and non-co operation of field formations. So far as the new rules in issue are concerned, the government should come up with guidelines or clarification strictly directing the relevant officers of excise and customs department to follow the provisions and procedure laid down by the new rules.
 

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