Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments
Publish Date: 05 Jun, 2007
Print   |    |  Comment

PAYMENT OF DUTY ON NEW COLD ROLLING MACHINES FOR PATTA-PATTI MANUFACTURERS

PAYMENT OF DUTY ON NEW COLD ROLLING MACHINES FOR PATTA-PATTI MANUFACTURERS
 
            The manufacturers of stainless steel patta-patti are covered under special procedure contained in Rule 96 ZA to Rule 96 ZGG of Central Excise Rules. They are currently paying duty at the rate of Rs. 15000/- per cold rolling machine per month. This article ponders over the payment of duty on new machine installed in the factory premises of such manufacture.
 
            As per provisions of Rule 96ZC(3),any manufacturer has to intimate as well as obtain permission before making any change in number of machines installed in the factory premises. The duty is payable as per provisions of Rule 96ZC(2) which is only charging provisions. This Rule reads as follows: -
 
            “The sum payable as under sub-rule (1) shall be calculated by application of such rate to the maximum number of cold rolling machines installed by or on behalf of such manufacturer in one or more premises at any time during three calendar months immediately preceding the calendar month in which the application under Rule 96 ZC is made.”
 
            Also, the manufacturer has to deposit duty and apply to Central Excise Department for the permission for clearance of patta-patti from his factory for ensuing month as per provisions of Rule 96 ZC (1) ibid. The Rule is enumerated below: -
 
            “Such manufacturer shall, at any time during the calendar month immediately preceding any month of part thereof, as the case may be, in respect of which he has been permitted to avail himself of the provisions of this section, make an application to the proper officer in the proper Form for leave to remove [stainless steel/pattas, or aluminium circles] from his premises during he ensuing month, declaring therein the maximum number of cold rolling machines installed by him or on his behalf, in one or more premises at any time during three calendar months immediately preceding the calendar month in which application is made.
 
            Now, we look at a practical example. Suppose, a manufacturer is operating with two machines seeks permission from the department in the month of July- 2000 for starting third new machine from August-2000 as per provisions of Rule 96 ZC (3). He will file application AR-8AA (prescribed under Rule 96 ZC (1)) with the department at the end of calendar month of July-2000 along with calculation of number of machines. The three proceeding months immediately preceding the calendar month of July-2000 will be June-2000, May-2000 and April-2000. The maximum number of machines will be two only. As such, he has to pay duty for two machines only.
 
            Similarly, during the next month he will deposit duty for September-2000 at the end of August-2000. The immediate preceding three calendar months to said calendar month (August-2000) will be July-2000, June-2000 and May-2000. The maximum number of cold rolling machines in these months will be two only as the new machine gas started in August-2000.
 
            Thereafter, he will deposit duty at the end of September-2000 for the month of October-2000. The three preceding calendar month will be August-2000, July-2000 and June-2000 and number of machines will be as under: -
 
Month
No. of Machines
August-2000
Three
July-2000
Two
June-2000
Two
 
            So, he has to deposit the duty for three machines being the maximum number of machines. So, it is ample clear that he need not to pay duty for continuous two months even if the machine is started by him. In this case, the machine is started in August-2000 but he is paying duty for the month of October-2000.
 
            Furthermore, the argument advanced that the existing set of Rules does not contain any provision for new machine is baseless because the calculation of maximum number of machine implies the change in number of machines. Otherwise, it does not have any meaning. So, the manufacturer need not to pay duty from the starting of machine itself. But the department has deployed its old weapon of seeking clarification from Board and asking the assessee to pay duty till the clarification is received. Let us wait for clarification and pray to God so that it might be received in years to come.
 
 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
 

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