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: 08 Jul, 2009
Print   |    |  Comment

New Refund Scheme For Exporters

 

NEW REFUND SCHEME FOR EXPORTERS
 Prepared By:- Pradeep Jain, CA   &               
Neetu Sukhwani                     
INTRODUCTION:-
 
The government has revamped the Refund scheme for exporters for ensuring speedier grant of refunds to them. The salient features of the new scheme have been notified under the two notifications, No. 17/2009-ST and No. 18/2009-ST, both being dated 07.07.2009. The scheme, though aspires to grant speedier refunds to the exporters but actually it incorporates increased formalities and compliance procedure that further increases the complexity in the process. This new scheme is very much similar to the marketing technique of introducing the same old product in new package to lure customers even when nothing seems to be new. A critical analysis of the key points mentioned in the said notifications is presented as follows:
Notification No. 17/2009-Service Tax:
1.     This notification provides exemption to taxable services specified in column (3) of the table provided that the exporter claiming such exemption has actually paid the service tax on the specified service to its provider. This condition as such restricts the benefit of exemption being provided.
2.     Further, according to clause (b), this exemption is provided to the manufacturer-exporter who is registered as an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1994 or the rules made there under. By imposition of this condition, the manufacturer-exporter registered under the Service Tax Rules cannot avail this exemption as contrary to the earlier scheme of refund.
3.     Moreover, to claim this exemption, the exporter who is not registered under the provisions referred to in clause (b), shall before filling a claim for refund of service tax, file a declaration in Form A-2 with the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having the jurisdiction over the registered office or the head office, as the case may be, of such exporter. This clause does not clarify whether the assessee has any option to file the declaration to the commissioner having jurisdiction over the registered office or head office or file it as per the specified order.
4.     The clause (d) states that the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall, after due verification, allot a service tax code (STC) number to the exporter, referred to in clause ( c), within seven days from the date of receipt of the said form A-2. It is to be noted here that to claim this exemption under this notification, the assessee is required to hold registration in Central Excise Act and so a STC no. will be allotted to him but what if the assessee is already registered under the Service Tax Rules and already has a STC no. Moreover, allotment of STC no. was being proposed in earlier scheme also but no allotment regarding the same has been made till date. The inclusion of the same clause is not feasible if no action could be taken on it in an earlier scheme.
5.     Further, according to clause (e), the exporter, referred to in clause (b) or (c), shall file the claim for refund of service tax to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture, registered office or the head office, as the case may be, of such exporter in Form A-1; There remains ambiguity as to filing of such refund claim to whom. If the merchant exporter has to file the refund claim with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of manufacturer then it will be very difficult situation as the STC code has been given by his jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner.
6.     The clause (f) further prescribes that the refund claim shall be filed within one year from the date of export of the said goods. Earlier it was to be filed for a quarter and that too within 180 days. But now it can be filed within a year and no period is prescribed. The exporter can file as many refund claim as they wish. The big exporters will like to file monthly claims so that their money is not blocked.
7.     The clause (h) prohibits refund claim for an amount less than Rs.500.
8.     Moreover, clause (i) reads as follows:
(A) the total amount of refund sought under a claim is upto 0.25% of the total declared free on board value of export;
(B) the exporter is registered with Export Promotion Council sponsored by the Ministry of Commerce or the Ministry of Textiles; Every exporter has to register himself with the export promotion council. Normally exporters availing the benefits from DGFT register themselves with EPC and those availing drawback does not go for the same. But now they have to register for claiming the refund claim.
(C) Subject to the provisions of (A) and (B) above, each document specified in clause (b) and in column (4) of the said Table shall be enclosed with the claim;
(D) Invoice, bill or challan, or any other document issued in the name of the exporter, showing payment for such service availed and the service tax payable shall be submitted in original after being certified in the manner specified in sub clauses (E) and (F); If the original are submitted, the exporter will not have the same. It is needed in various other laws. As such this condition is not practical.
(E) the exporter is a proprietorship concern or partnership firm, the documents enclosed with the claim shall be certified by the exporter himself and where the exporter is a limited company, the documents enclosed with the claim shall be certified by the person authorised by the Board of Directors;
(F)  the documents enclosed with the claim shall contain a certificate from the exporter or the authorised person to the effect that specified service, to which the document pertains, has been received, the service tax payable thereon has been paid and the specified service has been used for export of goods under the shipping bill number;
By examining the points specified above, it can be very well concluded that the procedure to claim refund has been made even more complicated than before as the exporter is not only required to get STC under the Central Excise Act but also get registered with Export Promotion Council and comply with its formalities. Further, the documents to be submitted are to be original. In such a case, there will not be any proof of submission of such documents with the exporter and also, it has not been specified whether these documents will be returned back to the exporter or not.
9.     Further, the clause (j) states that where the amount of refund sought under a refund claim is more than 0.25% of the declared free on board value for export, such certification, shall be done by the Chartered Accountant who audits the annual accounts of the exporter for the purposes of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or the Income Tax Act, 1961(143 of 1961), as the case may be;
10. Further, it has been mentioned that the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall, after satisfying himself,-
(i)                That the claim filed is complete in every respect
(ii)             That all the documents requiring certification have been filed after due certification; and
(iii)            About the arithmetical accuracy of the claim,
shall refund the service tax paid on the specified service within a period of one month from the receipt of said claim. This truly reflects the stringent requirements and the increased procedural compliance. Further. the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, may deny such refund claim on any reason or take action if there is any deficiency in complying with the provisions in this regard. This discretionary power being given also presents the strict procedure for granting refund. If after getting all the certificates, each claim has to be verified by the department then it will lead to old position wherein all the claims will be rejected on small or procedural requirements.
11.  Further, there has been included the provision for recovery of the service tax refunded where any refund of service tax paid on specified service utilized for export of said goods has been paid to exporter but the sale proceeds in respect of the said goods have not been realized within the period allowed under FEMA or if the refund has been sanctioned erroneously.
12.  Further, the waiver of formalities like submission of written agreement with the buyer in case of service provided by a technical testing and analysis agency, in relation to technical testing and analysis of said goods and service provided by technical inspection and certification agency in relation to inspection and certification of export goods is being welcomed.
13.  Similarly, the waiver of the formalities like submission of written agreement and the certificates in case of specialized cleaning services namely disinfecting, exterminating, sterilizing or fumigating of containers used for export of said goods provided to an exporter is also welcomed.
14. The grievance of many formalities being incorporated in case of courier services is communicated as these services involve meager amount and hence these compliances should be removed at the earliest.
15.  Further, the refund can also be claimed in respect of service tax paid on services commonly known as terminal handling charges by this notification which is also being appreciated.
16. Further, in the table given in Form-A1, it is specified to give the details as regards total amount of service tax claimed as refund in column 6. In that also, the bifurcation as to service tax in figures and the service tax as a percentage of f.o.b. value in shipping bill is to be provided. In this respect, it has not been specified as to whether service wise percentage of f.o.b. is to be shown or as a percentage of total service provided.
Notification No. 18/2009-Service Tax:
1.     Exemption to Goods Transport Agency: This notification exempts the service provided to an exporter for transport of the said goods by road from any container freight station or inland container depot to the port or airport, as the case may be, from where the goods are exported. This covers the road transportation service availed by an exporter from the place of removal to an inland container depot, a container freight station, a port or airport, as the case may be, from where the goods are exported. The conditions prescribed to avail such exemption by the exporter in this regard are that the exporter is required to produce the consignment note issued in his name. Hence, the consignment note holds importance to claim exemption in this regard.
2.     Exemption to Commission Agent: Further, exemption has also been granted in case of service provided by a commission agent located outside India and engaged under a contract or agreement or any other document by the exporter in India, to act on behalf of the exporter, to cause sale of goods exported by him. This exemption is too dependent on the fulfillment of a number of conditions being laid in this regard. The first one being the declaration of the amount of commission paid or payable to the commission agent in the shipping bill or bill of export as the case may be. Further, the exemption shall be limited to one per cent of the free on board value of export goods for which the said service has been used. Moreover, this exemption shall not be available on the export of canalized item, project export, or export financed under lines of credit extended by Government of India or EXIM Bank, or export made by Indian partner in a company with equity participation in an overseas joint venture or wholly owned subsidiary. Further, the stringent requirements of submission of the half yearly return after certification of the same, submission of the original documents showing actual payment of commission to the commission agent, submission of a copy of the agreement or contract entered into between the commission agent located outside India and the exporter in relation to export of goods continues to exist to make the procedure typical.
3.     Filing of Declaration: Moreover, there has also been included the requirement of informing the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over the factory or the regional office or the head office, as the case may be, in Form EXP1, before availing the said exemption
4.     Filling of Return: The exporter shall also file return in Form EXP2 every six months of the financial year, within fifteen days of the completion of the said six months. Further, the exporter is also required to submit the documents specified in original after certification of the same. The exporter hence exists in a great pressure as to see to it that his excise returns and the above mentioned formalities are complied timely so as to avail the benefit of exemption under this notification. Moreover, the same documents like the Shipping Bill, Bill of Lading etc. would be submitted thrice i.e. once while submitting proof of export, for filling refund claim and for claiming benefit under notification 18/2009 as it specifies to submit these documents while filling return in Form EXP2 which would lead to unnecessary compliance formalities.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
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