Excise Registration granted to Proprietory Firms is illegal: J. Abhichandani

Exchange Rate for imported goods is Rs 74.03 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 51.22 Per Yen-Exchange Rate for export is Rs 72.45 Per Pound Sterling and Rs 49.94 Per Yen-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.128 Sensex slips further and closes at 8773 100 per cent EOUs allowed to export non-basmati rice-DGFT Notification No.59 Customs duty of 5 per cent imposed on import of Pig Iron, spiegeleisen, semi-finished products, flat products & long products Import of Crude Soyabean Oil subjected to 20 per cent customs duty- no change in import duty on refined soyabean oil-Customs Tariff Notification No.122 Time-limit for filing refund of service tax extended to 6 months-Service Tax Notification No.32 Rahul Bajaj asks Industry to prepare for the worst Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3525 and for poppy seeds 5206-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 127 CBEC clarifies the entire amount of duty paid by the manufacturer, as shown in the invoice would be available as credit irrespective of the fact that subsequent to clearance of the goods, the price is reduced by way of discount or otherwise-Central Excise Circular No.877 Mandavariya (Kishangarh), District Ajmer notified for Unloading of imported goods and loading of export goods-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No.117 SC Ruling-the entitlement of benefit in terms of Section 32AB, Section 80HH and Section 80I of the Income Tax Act- conversion of Jumbo rolls of photographic films into small flats and rolls in the desired sizes amounted to manufacture/production-AIT-2008-413-SC SC Ruling-Whether any "gift" arose in terms of Section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 on the allotment of rights issue by the appellant company to its shareholders vide Board's Resolution- Whether there was any element of "gift" as defined under Section 2(xii) in the appellant issuing Bonus shares in the ratio of 1:23-AIT-2008-412-SC DEPB benefit allowed on export of cement and steel-DGFT PN 108 exports of cement in all types and forms and primary steel products eligible for export incentives under Focus Market Scheme-DGFT Notification No.58 Import of Marble Tiles-DGFT Notification No.57 Clarification on setting up Duty Free Shops approved by FIPB-Customs Circular No.19 HC Ruling-Income Tax-"reserves" arising out of the acquisition of the business of Tata Cellular Limited could never have the character of "income" in the hands of the petitioners-pre-requisite condition contained in proviso to section 147 to enable the re-assessment to be opened after period of 4 years have elapsed have not been met-AIT-2008-410-HC HC Ruling-Central Excise- valuation of the goods for the purpose of excise duty and whether excise duty was chargeable under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act 1944-while construing rule 3, who are excluded are only the institutional or industrial consumers as explained in Rule 2A and the industrial or institutional consumers in terms of the proviso to rule 2(p) for the purpose of chapter-II are the same-If the person who purchase the prepacked commodity not directly from the manufacturer or packers, they are consumers and the declaration will be of no effect-AIT-2008-408-HC Government considering imposition of import duty on steel Bad News for Consulting Engineers- whether turnkey contract can be vivisected?- The conclusion in Daelim case on the point, prima facie, being not in accordance with law, matter goes to Larger Bench-AIT-2008-405-CESTAT Larger Bench of CESTAT rules Credit is admissible on an input service relating to the business-AIT-2008-407-CESTAT credit of the service tax paid on the outdoor catering (canteen) service is admissible as input service under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004-AIT-2008-406-CESTAT The payment for use of "services for MTNL/other companies via the interconnect/port/access/toll by the assessee would not fall within the purview of payments as provided for under section 194J of the Act, so as to be eligible for tax deduction at source-The interconnect charges/port access charges cannot be regarded as fees for technical services-AIT-2008-404-HC Computation of Value under Section 14 for Levy of Export Duty - Customs Circular No. 18 Advance Ruling- Whether the service fee paid by the applicant to Intertek Testing Management Limited UK under Global Management Service Agreement is taxable as "Royalties & Fee for Technical Services" as per the provisions of Article 13 of DTAA between India & UK? Whether the applicant is required to deduct tax at source on the service fee paid to Intertek Testing Management Limited, UK, at the rate of 10% plus applicable surcharge and cess as per the provisions of section 115A(1)(b)(BB) of the Income-tax Act-AIT-2008-401-AAR Larger Bench of SC Ruling-whether the revenue can be precluded from filing an appeal even though in respect of some other years involving identical dispute no appeal is filed -AIT-2008-403-SC SC Ruling-whether transfer of Banking Undertaking gave rise to taxable capital gains under Section 45 of the 1961 Act-it was not possible to compute capital gains and, therefore, the said amount of Rs. 10.20 cr. was not taxable under Section 45 of Income Tax Act-AIT-2008-400-SC Export duty of 8 per cent notified in place of earlier rate of Rs. 200 per tonne on export of iron ore fines-Customs Tariff Notification No.121 Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination And Collection of Duty) Second Amendment Rules, 2008-Central Excise Non-Tariff Notification No.45 SC rules Ethylene and propylene manufactured by the assessee and used in its factory in the further manufacture of the same goods would be entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in notification no.217/86-AIT-2008-398-SC New DEPB Rates on export of all products notified–DGFT PN 102 service tax paid under Section 66A is available as 'input credit' under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provided the said services are used as input services by the manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of output taxable service-Service Tax Trade Notice No.43/2008 Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of cable ties from China & Taiwan-Customs Tariff Notification No.118 Definitive Anti-dumping duty imposed on import of Phenol from Singapore, South Africa & European Union-Customs Tariff Notification No.114 High-tech products entitled to benefits under High-Tech Products Export Promotion Scheme –DGFT PN 101

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

Excise Registration granted to Proprietory Firms is illegal: J. Abhichandani

AIT News Network

NEW DELHI. Vide a significant ruling AIT-2007-264-CESTAT Justice Abhichandani President of CESTAT has held that the Central Excise Registration granted in name of the Firms owned by the Proprietor is illegal. All excise registrations and assessments are required to be done in the name(s) of the persons concerned even when they run proprietory business in different names.

T H E R U L I N G

Excise registrations contemplated by Rule 9 can be done only of person(s) who are manufacturers and such person(s) alone can be the assessees. A proprietory concern has no legal existence of its own and is not a person like a company or a living individual. The use of the prefix “Messers” in a proprietory name misleads the public at large and the officials, by suggesting that it is a body of persons. A registered partnership firm would be a group of persons who are its partners and will collectively be manufacturers and assessees, though doing a business in the name of their partnership firm. Only a registered partnership firm can sue or be sued in the firm’s name, that too for convenience sake. Beyond that, it has no juristic personality. The scheme of the said Act and the Rules contemplates, registration and assessment of individuals or juristic persons, and not of mere business names of sole-proprietors. An individual himself will be the manufacturer and assessee, even if he does his activities under more than one business names of his sole-proprietory concerns. One can effectively thwart an inquiry into “relationship” so important for ascertaining the genuineness of transaction value by projecting proprietory concerns of different names to create an illusion that the transactions are between different entities; though in reality their proprietor being the same, cannot transact with himself. There cannot be contractual relations with one’s own self and, therefore, no legal contractual transactions can be recognized amongst the sole proprietory concerns created by the same individual showing inter se business activities in such different names. There cannot be any independent contractual relationship between mere business names when the proprietor is the same person. It cannot be easily ascertained from the assumed business names of sole proprietory concerns, whether they are owned by the same proprietor and if there are different proprietors, whether they are “related” in the context of the need for valuation inquiries.
The word “manufacturer”, under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall include not only person who employs hired labour in the production or manufacture of the excisable goods, but also any person who engages in their production or manufacture on his own account. Thus, a manufacturer has to be a person, living or juristic. A soleproprietory concern is not a juristic person and cannot, of its own, be a manufacturer or producer. For the purpose of Section 4, “assessee” is defined in sub-section (3)(a) thereof, to mean the person who is liable to pay the duty of excise under the Act and includes his agents. Any prescribed person who is engaged in the production or manufacture or any process of production or manufacture of specified goods is required to get himself registered with proper officer, as required by Section 6 of the said Act. Therefore, registration can be done only of such prescribed person, and not of a sole-proprietory concern, which by itself is not a person. The practice of giving registration in the name of a proprietory concern and not the person, who is the proprietor, is contrary to the provisions of the said Act and is capable of perpetuating frauds due to the real name of the person concerned being camouflaged by the assumed proprietory name. The word “assessee”, as defined in Rule 2(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, means any person who is liable for payment of duty or a registered person of a private warehouse. Under Rule 4, duty is payable on removal of excisable goods by every person who produces or manufactures or stores in a warehouse. Thus, none of the provisions of the Act or the Rules warrants recognition of mere sole proprietory name as manufacturer or assessee, who would be liable to pay the duty. Only a person living or juristic can be registered for the purposes of the Act and will be liable to assessment and payment of duty irrespective of any name/names that he may adopt for doing the proprietory business. All the excise registerations and assessments under the Act and the Rules are required to be done in the name(s) of the persons concerned even when they run their proprietory business in different names. In fact, the practice of registering manufactures in the name of proprietory concerns, appears to have been unwittingly recognized by a seemingly innocuous but a most damaging instruction in note 5 which has crept in the prescribed Form A1, which was substituted w.e.f. 1.10.2002. The said form is prescribed for application for central excise registration, in the context of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Surprisingly, though Section 6 of the Act clearly contemplated registration of a person who is engaged in the production or manufacture of excisable goods, the newly introduced instruction no. 5 of the proforma application A1 requires that, name of the registrant should be the name and style in which the registrant is likely to carry out the business. This shady instruction 5 was wholly uncalled for and is contrary to the scheme of the Act and the Rules, and is capable of perpetrating mischief and fraud by shielding the names of the real persons who are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and are required to be registered under Section 6 of the Act read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which refer to the registration of the person who produces or manufactures the excisable goods. It will be noticed that, no such instruction ever existed in the earlier proforma application for registration. This is evident from the earlier proforma A1 issued under Rule 9 of the Rules of 2001, which required a request being made to the Superintendent of Central Excise to issue a Registration Certificate under Rule 9 for the purposes indicated in the Schedule to that proforma. In that Schedule, name and address of the person applying for the registration was required to be mentioned. There was absolutely no scope for registering the name of any “non-person”; and the details of the properties, persons, directors as the case may be, were also required to be given. In the same way, even in the still earlier proforma in Form R1 under the Central Excise Rules of 1944, the application for registration was required to be made by the person in whose name the registration certificate was required to be issued. The application was to be made in the name of the person (living or juristic) applying and not in any other name. Thus, there never was any possibility of giving excise registration in the names of soleproprietory concerns. In view of the substantive provisions of Section 6 of the said Act and Rule 9 of the said Rules, instruction No. 5 in the proforma application Form A1 is ultra vires the scope of the said statutory provisions. All excise registrations and assessments are required to be done in the name(s) of the persons concerned even when they run proprietory business in different names. It will be for the Parliament, the rule making authority, the Board and the excise officials to recognize the potential mischief and large scale abuse that is caused by allowing the excise registrations and doing assessments in the names of proprietory concerns and not in the names of the real persons who are the manufacturers and assessees, and take appropriate remedial measures.

(Click here for full text of Ruling AIT-2007-264-CESTAT)