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: 25 Mar, 2013
Print   |    |  Comment

Patta Patti manufacturers: Tempted to opt Cenvat Scheme

Patta Patti manufacturers: Tempted to opt Cenvat Scheme

 
 

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

Introduction:-
 

Compounded levy scheme was introduced in the Central Excise Law with the duty of Rs. 10000/- per machine per month in the year 1994. The scheme was simple with reasonable amount of duty, as such a no. of manufacturers of stainless steel patta-patti switched to it. Later on this duty was increased to Rs. 15000/- and then to Rs. 30000/-. Now, this duty has been increased to Rs. 40000/- vide notification no. 5/2013-CE dated 1.3.2013. The increase in duty amount in the compound levy indicates that this step of government is going to decrease the popularity of this scheme in the stainless steel industry. This piece of writing is about the implications of this amendment on the stainless steel industry.

 
Product chain in stainless steel (SS) industry:-
 

The end product of SS industry is utensils which are manufactured by following process:-
·        The initial input is the SS scrap which is converted into flats.
·        Flats are subjected to process of hot rolling and the resultant product is hot rolled patta patti.
·        Hot rolled patta patti are processed in cold rolling mills, the resultant product being cold rolled patta patti.
·        The cold rolled patta patti are converted into circles.
·        The circles are used in the manufacture of the utensils.
The compounded levy is levied on the intermediate process of cold rolling.

 
Situation prior to budget, 2011:-
 

There was no excise duty on the utensils by virtue of Notification no. 10/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. The circles used in the manufacture of utensils was also exempted vide Notification no. 3/2005-CE dated 24-2-2005. Thus, the buyers of cold rolled patta pattis were not concerned whether the excise duty is charged on their invoice or not as in any case the excise duty was forming the part of their cost. This was the prime reason for which most of the manufacturers of the patta patti had opted for compounded levy. Besides this, the compound levy was simple involving less procedural formalities with reasonable amount of duty.

 
Situation after budget, 2011:-
 

Budget, 2011 has brought the excise duty on the utensils @ 1% under Notification no. 1/2011-CE dated 1.3.2011 on the condition that no credit is availed. Also an option was given in this budget to pay the excise duty on utensils @ 5% under Notification no. 2/2011-CE dated 1.3.2011 alongwith the facility of Cenvat credit. Since 1% duty was not a big deal, most of the manufacturers have opted for it rather than going for 5% duty with Cenvat. Thus, even after budget, 2011; though duty was imposed on utensils, the manufacturers did not require the Cenvat credit, as such, there was no impact on the manufacturers of cold rolled patta patti.

 
Situation after budget, 2012:-
 

The duty of 1% was increased to 2% on the utensils in budget, 2012. Simultaneously, the duty of 5% with Cenvat was also increased to 6% in this budget. As a result of this increase, big players of this industry where start to finish process i.e. cold rolling as well as utensils was carried out either in the same factory or within the same group companies; had already switched to Cenvat scheme. If the same cold rolling as well as utensils were manufactured in same premises then there was no problem in switching to Cenvat scheme. But if the manufacture of cold rolled as well as utensils were undertaken in separate premises or separate entities then they were following the job work procedure. However, the other manufacturers working alone were stuck to the compounded levy and those manufacturing the utensils were still paying the duty @ 2% on utensils without availing the Cenvat. However, recently announced budget of year 2013 may result into scrapping of the compounded levy scheme in SS industry.

 
Implications of Budget, 2013:-
 

Budget, 2013 has increased the duty under compounded levy scheme by Rs. 10000/-, now the effective duty under this scheme is Rs. 40000/- per machine per month. This is substantial increase after the increase in duty on utensils in previous budget. As already stated the big players have already switched to Cenvat scheme.  Obviously, the cost of utensils manufactured by these companies will be low as they are availing the Cenvat at full rate and paying the concessional duty @ 6% only. However, those manufacturer who are paying the duty on utensils @ 2% without Cenvat will find it tough to survive as the excise duty paid by the manufacturers of patta patti, whether in compounded levy (which has increased substantially) or in normal scheme, is forming the part of their cost.
Under above circumstances, there are two options available with the manufacturers of utensils:-
 
(i)                To purchase the flats as inputs and avail the Cenvat credit. Thereafter, get them processed in cold rolling mill on job work basis. Utilize the cold rolled patta patti in manufacture of circles and utensils thereafter and clear the same on payment of duty.

(ii)              To get the SS patta patti from the manufacturer who is operating under Cenvat scheme. Avail the Cenvat, manufacture and clear utensils on payment of excise duty @ 6%.
 
The second option hereabove will not be followed by the manufacturers as there is direct outflow in form of excise duty and the only option available will be the option 1 hereabove. Thus, in any case, the utensil manufacturers will prefer to procure the flats and send it to for job work, rather than purchasing the same from patta patti manufacturers. Since the increased duty on compounded levy will ultimately increase the cost of such manufacturers (additional burden of increase in compound levy duty as well as direct outflow of 2%). Thus, the only feasible option will be to purchase the flats and get the cold rolled patta patti manufacture on the job work basis.

 
While Concluding:-
 

At the time of introduction, the compounded levy scheme under SS industry was very attractive. This attraction was also due the fact that the end product “utensils” were exempted. However, this attraction faded to some extent after the announcement of budget, 2011 when the duty was imposed on the utensils. After levy of duty on utensils, it has faced the increase by 1% in the previous budget which has let many of the utensil manufacturers to shift to Cenvat scheme. Now the substantial increase in the duty under compounded levy scheme also indicates the dimming attraction of this scheme...

Comments

Post a Comment



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