Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   CBIC issues draft rules for Customs valuation *  Top Headlines: Threshold for Benami deals, green bond investors, and more *  Govt aims 1-hour clearance for goods at all ports *  Exporters Allowed To Use RoDTEP, RoSCTL Scrips To Pay Customs Duty, Transfer Them; Rules Amended *  Millions of labourers to be affected by brick producers’ strike over hike in GST, coal rates *  Inauguration of ‘kendriya GST parisar’ *  Transporter can seek Release of Conveyance alone, not Goods under GST Act: Madras HC *  GST: Quoting of DIN Mandatory for Responding to Notice, Govt Modifies Portal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  CBIC issues modalities for filing transitional credit under GST. *  Mumbai: Man creates 36 fake GST firms, arrested for input tax credit fraud of Rs 23 cr *  Report to restructure Commerce Ministry under study; idea is to set up trade promotion body: Goyal *  Firms can soon file claims for GST credits of ?400 cr *  Gambling Alert! Govt May Levy Up To 28% GST; UP, Bengal Back Move *  EPFO backs raising retirement age to ease pressure on pension funds *  India Moving Up Power Scale, Set to Become Third Largest Economy By 2030 *  Airfares Get Expensive: What Changes for Flyers From Today? *  IRCTC Latest News: Passengers to Pay More For Cancelling Confirmed Rail Tickets Soon. *  IBC prevails over Customs Act, says Supreme Court. *  As GST enters sixth year, a time for evaluation and reassessment *  There’s GST on daily essentials as Centre needs money to buy MLAs: Arvind Kejriwal *  Now, GST on cancellation of confirmed train tickets, hotel bookings *  GST kitty for top States could rise 20% in FY23, says Crisil *  French customs officials seize another cargo vessel over Russia sanctions *  TradeLens builds on Asia momentum with Pakistan Customs deal *  Hike tax on tobacco, reduce affordability & increase revenue: Civil society organizations to GST council *  Bihar: ?10 crore tax evasion on tobacco products detected in raids *  Centre failed on GST, COVID; would it be anti-national? Rajan on Infosys row *  Service Tax not Chargeable on Income Tax TDS portion paid by recipient: CESTAT grants relief to TVS *  Foreign portfolio investors make net investment of Rs 7575cr in Sep so far
Subject News *  Run-up to Budget: Monetary threshold for GST offences may rise to Rs 25 cr *   GST (Tax) E-invoice Must For Businesses With Over Rs 5 Crore Annual Turnover *   Both Central GST and excise duty can be imposed on tobacco, rules Karnataka high court *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *   CBIC Issues Clarification On Extended Timelines For GST Compliance *  Budget 2023- 9.6 crore gas connections *  GST: Tamil Nadu Issues Instructions for Assessment and Adjudication Proceedings *  GST: CBIC Extends Last Date for filing of ITC *  GST collection in September surpasses Rs 1.4 lakh crore for straight seventh time *  Dollar smuggling case: Customs chargesheet names M Sivasankar as key conspirator. *  Hike in GST rates fuels inflation *  Assam: CBI arrests GST commissioner in Guwahati *  GST fraud worth ?824cr by 15 insurance Cos detected *  India proposes 15% customs duties on 22 items imported from UK *  Decriminalising certain offences under GST on cards *  Surge in GST collections more due to higher inflation: India Ratings *  MNRE Notifies BCD and Hike in GST Rates as ‘Change in Law’ Events But With a Condition | Mercom India *   Solar projects awarded before customs duty change allowed cost pass-through *  Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Levy Of GST On Royalty *   GST revenue in September likely at Rs 1.45 lakh crore *  Govt working on decriminalising certain offences under GST, lower compounding charge *  Building an institution like GST Council takes time, trashing is easy: Sitharaman *  GST collections in Sept may touch ?1.5 lakh crore *  KTR asks Centre to withdraw GST on handlooms *  After Gameskraft, More Online Gaming Startups To Receive GST Tax Claims *  Madras HC: AAR Application Filed Under VAT Does Not Survive After GST Enactment *  Threshold for criminal offences under GST law may be raised *  Bengaluru: Gaming company faces biggest GST notice of Rs 21,000 crore *  CBIC clarifies Classification of Cranes for GST, Customs Duty *  Customs seize gold hidden in bicycle in Kerala airport  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2014-15/2517

Option to pay duty under compound scheme once exercised remains valid unless revoked.

Case:-M/s KAMAKHYA STEELS PVT LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-I
 
Citation:-2015-TIOL-34-CESTAT-DEL


Brief Facts:-This order is being issued in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in respect of the appellants' appeal No.171/2006.
 
Vide its Final Order No.61/2006-Ex. dated 7.10.2005, CESTAT had upheld the impugned order-in original in terms of which the duty demand on the appellants was confirmed assessing their liability under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 96 ZO of the (then) Central Excise Rules, 1944. Para-3 of the CESTAT order is re-produced below:
 
"3. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellant filed necessarydeclaration in the year 1997 and also on 1.4.98, in terms of Sub-Rules (3) of Rule 96 ZO of t he Central Excise Rules and their duty liability is determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellant had not opted for the duty
determination on actual production under Section 3A( 4) of the Central Excise Rules. The contention of the Revenue is that the two letters relied upon by the appellant are not opting out of the Scheme provided under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 96 ZO of the Central Excise but these are only requests that their actual production in the financial year is less than as determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise and to determine the duty liability on the basis of actual production. The Revenue's contention is that this is not permissible in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Vs. Venus Castings (P) Ltd. reported in 2000 (117) ELT 273 (SC) . The Revenue is also relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Supreme Steels & General Mills, reported in 2001 (133) ELT 513 (SC). We find that in this case the appellant opted to pay duty under Rule 96 ZO( 3) of the Central Excise Rules and filed necessary declarations on 3.8.97 and 1.4.98 and annual capacity was determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Vs. Venus Castings (P) Ltd. (supra) held that a manufacturer cannot opt twice during one financial year first choosing to pay in accordance to Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 96 ZO of Central Excise Rules and, thereafter, to switch over to actual production basis under Section 3A (4) of the Central Excise Act. The same view is reiterated in the case of Union of India Vs. Supreme Steels & General Mills (supra). In the present case the appellant during the same financial year asked for re-determination of the annual capacity under Section 3A( 4) of the Central Excise Act which is not permissible. Further, we find that appellant in the beginning of any financial year had not opted to pay duty under Section 3A (4) of the Central Excise Act. The letters relied upon by the appellant is only asking for re-determination of actual production basis during the same financial year for which appellant opted to pay duty under Rule 96 ZO (3) of the Central Excise Rules. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the demand of duty is confirmed. However, taking into facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). The appeal is disposed of as indicated above."
 
The appellants filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court vide its aforesaid order ordered as under:
 
"10. We find that the Tribunal has not considered the plea of the appellant that for the financial year 1999-2000 under Rules 96 ZO(3) the option as (sic) required under Sub-Rule 3 of 1996 ZO has not been given by the appellant.
 
11. The Tribunal has not adjudicated that if the option has not be given for the 1999-2000 whether the appellant is liable for the payment of duty under Rule 96 ZO.
 
12. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that this aspect of the matter requires consideration by the Tribunal afresh.
 
13. It is made clear that the matter is relegated only for the determination of the liability for the financial year 1999-2000 and not for any other year."
 
Thus the very narrow issue for decision in this order is whether the duty liability of the appellants for the year 1999-2000 is to be assessed in terms of Rule 96 ZO( 3) after considering the plea of the appellants that for the financial year 1999-2000 under Rule 96 ZO(3), the option as required under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 96 ZO had not been given by them.
 
Appellant contentions:- The appellants contended that the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96 ZO ibid operated financial year wise and therefore when no option was given by them to opt for the scheme for the financial year 1999-2000, the assessment under Rule 96 ZO was not legal and proper. They also contended that by their various letters they had been protesting that there is much difference between their capacity determination and actual production and that the duty paid by them under Rule 96 ZO should be treated to have been paid under protest. They referred to their letters dated 27.2.1999 and 4.5.1999 wherein they requested for redetermination of the duty liability on actual production basis during the year 1998-1999. They claimed that all these letters clearly showed their unhappiness and their intention to opt out of the compounded levy.
 
Reasoning of Judgment:- We have considered the contentions of the appellants. As has been recorded by CESTAT in its order dated 7.10.2005 the appellants filed necessary declaration opting to pay duty under Rule 96 ZO(3) in the year 1997 and also again on 1.4.1998. The said Rule does not require filing of declaration on an annual basis. Indeed the format of the declaration prescribed under Rules 96 ZO(4) also makes it clear that the declaration is not for any particular financial year nor is it required to be filed for every financial year. The format of the declaration prescribed is re-produced below:
 
"We ________(name of the factory), located at ________(address) hereby wish to avail of the scheme described in sub-rule (3) of rule 96 ZO, for full and final discharge of our duty liability for the manufacture of ingots and billets of non-alloy steel under Section 3 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)."
 
Even the appellants' declarations did not indicate that they were valid only for one financial year. Therefore unless the appellants specifically opted out of the scheme, the declarations they filed opting for the compounded levy scheme obviously continued to be valid. The Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Venus Castings Pvt. Ltd.- 2000 (117) ELT 273 (SC) has held that the assessee if they have availed of the procedure under Rule 96 ZO(3) at their option, cannot claim the benefit of determination of production capacity under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is specifically excluded. As observed by CESTAT in its order dated 7.10.2005, the Supreme Court in the case of Venus Castings (supra) also held that a manufacturer cannot opt twice during one financial year first choosing to pay in accordance to Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 96 ZO of Central Excise Rules and, thereafter, to switch over to actual production basis under Section 3A (4) of the Central Excise Act. This itself means that the assessee can opt out of the scheme at the end of the financial year. It is matter of record that the assessee never opted out of the compounded levy scheme after having opted in for the same. Letters cited by them only show that they were not happy with the quantum of duty liability in terms of the said Rule 96 ZO( 3). But such unhappiness can never be equated to a formal opting out of the scheme. For example, expressing unhappiness in a marriage can never be taken to be tantamount to opting for divorce. Thus it is evident that in the wake of the fact that the appellants never opted out [after having opted in for paying under Rules 96 ZO (3)], they continued to be liable to be assessed thereunder. There is not even an iota of doubt that there was requirement to file the option to opt for the scheme in every financial year. Similarly, there is no ground to even suggest that the declaration to opt for the scheme was valid only for one financial year. Thus once having opted in, one had to expressly opt out of the same.
 
At the stage of hearing, the appellants also raised the issue to maintainability of these proceedings in the wake of abolition of Rule 96 ZO of Central Excise Rules as well as Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, as this adjudication is only within the narrow compass delineated by and in the wake of the judgement of Allahabad High Court, this plea cannot be, and therefore is not being, taken up for consideration.
 
In the light of the foregoing, it is held that the appellants were liable for payment of duty for the year 1999-2000 under Rule 96 ZO. Consequently, the Tribunal's Final Order dated 17.10.2005 requires no modification whatsoever.
 
Decision:- Appeal rejected.

Comment:- The crux of the case is that if a manufacturer chooses to avail the option to pay duty under compound levy scheme in accordance with Rule 96 ZO of Central Excise Rules, then such option is to be continued until and unless the same is specifically revoked by the assessee. One more analogy drawn is that is there is nothing specific in the scheme that the declaration to opt for the scheme is valid only for one financial year.Therefore, after having opted in for paying duty under Rules 96ZO( 3) on annual capacity of production unless assessee opts out of the compounded levy scheme he could not pay duty on actual production basis u/s 3A(4) of the CEA, 1944. Thus once having opted in for compound levy, the assessee had to expressly opt out of the same.
 
Prepared By: Meet Jain
 

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