Packing Material Makers stop clearances after Excise controversy

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

Packing Material Makers stop clearances after Excise controversy

AIT News Network

NEW DELHI. AIT Office is flooded with calls from Packing Material Makers as the Rumour is hot for last couple of days that small-scale excise exemption is no more admissible to Packing Material manufacturing Units as they are printing the Brand names of others on the Packing Material and hence the exemption of Rs 1.5 Crore turnover under Central Excise Tariff Notification No.8/2003 does not apply to them.

The Packing Material Makers have stopped clearances with effect from 1st April 2008 and are in a dilemma as to whether avail the exemption or to start paying excise from very beginning of the year.

AIT Team did some research and found out that the root of the rumours is a communication C.No. V(30)Tech/Packing Material/64/07/2685/19.02.08 dated 19.2.2008. issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur which is as under:

“Sub : Non applicability of Notification No. 08/2003 on the packaging material bearing other’s brand – reg.

Please refer to the undersigned’s letter C. No V(30)Tech/Packing material /64/2007/31-33 and 848-49 dated 16.01.08/21.01.02008 on the subject as mentioned above.

In the above context, the matter has been Re-examined. On re-examination, it is observed that even though the packing material as mentioned in the said letter dated 16.01.08/21.01.08 of the undersigned may not be used by the packing material manufacturer for packing and clearing any other goods from his factory with the help of such packing material, such packing material itself is classifiable under a definite tariff item by virtue of its own identity as a separate excisable goods and such packing material is also specified in the SSI exemption as one of the goods entitled to the said exemption subject to the fulfillment of the conditions of SSI exemption . Therefore , since such packing material is also a specified goods for the purpose of the SSI exemption , such packing material is also a specified goods for the purpose of SSI exemption such packing material affixed with the brand names of others will not be entitled to the benefits of the SSI exemption in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in the case of Kohinoor Blastic Pvt Ltd Vs CCE , Indore (2005(188)ELT3(SC) and in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs Bhalla Enterprises (2004(178)ELT-225(SC) . There are several CESTAT judgments also in support of such a view.

Accordingly, the instructions contained in the undersigned’s letter No V (30) Tech/Packing material/64/2007/31-33 and 848-49 dated 16.01.08/21.01.2008 on the subject as mentioned above may please be treated as modified to the above extent and action may taken accordingly . In this regard, attention is also invited to the clarifications given vide the undersigned’s DOC no. 02/Commr/KNP/Rev Tar/06/11939-46 dated 06.10.07 and of even C No. 14793 -800 dated 20.12.07 which will remain unaltered.”

Thus according to views of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, the packing material affixed with the brand names of others will not be entitled to the benefits of the small –scale excise exemption of Rs 1.5 Crore clearances.

According to RS Sharma Advocate the small-scale exemption is admissible to manufacturers of packing material who are printing the Brandname or Tradename of their clients on the packing material as the packing material itself cannot be treated as Branded goods within the ambit and scope of the Notification. In fact the goods which are packed inside the packing material are to be treated as Branded goods. The views of learned Commissioner of Central Excise do not reflect correct interpretation of exemption Notification No. 8/2003 .Further, even the cases cited in the communication do not apply in such cases. Instead of jumping the gun by issue of controversial communication; the learned Commissioner should have referred the matter to CBEC for issue of clarification in such matters. The clients have already been advised to avail the exemption, Sharma added.

It is high time CBEC clears the air on the issue through a clarification so that the sword of demand and litigation does not hang on the neck of manufacturers.