Packing Material Makers stop clearances after Excise controversy

Reliance's Tax Advisor & ex-IRS Officer Sandeep Tandon dies of cancer Bad News for NDT-Delhi High Court decides to hear paternity suit against Tiwari filed by Rohit Shekhar, who claims that he is biological son of ND Tiwari Haryana Assembly okays Special Economic Zone (Amendment) Bill, 2010, which seeks to provide for refund of stamp duty on registration of land collected from developers of SEZs in the state before notification of SEZ Microsoft loses 106 million dollar Patent verdict Sensex hits 17500 Points in early trading FM says inflation may hit double digit in March Authority for Advance Ruling rules the payments made to ABB Research Ltd., Zurich towards the applicant's share of the cost incurred in respect of R&D activities are not liable to be taxed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as business income in the absence of permanent establishment in India, having regard to Art.7 of the Tax Treaty- Nor can it be subjected to tax as royalty or fees for technical services under Article 12 of the Treaty-AIT-2010-94-AAR Tariff Value for import of Brass Scrap is 3801 and for poppy seeds 4256-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 20 No approval for procurement of service “Rental” of immovable property for office outside the Special Economic Zone/FTWZ can be given-SEZ Instruction No. 49 on Clarifications on FTWZ issues Consolidated list of default authorized operations which can be undertaken by the developer/approved co-developer by default from the date of notification-SEZ Instruction No.50 Himachal Government hikes VAT from 4 per cent to 5 per cent on all items, except edible oils and foodgrains Authority for Advance Ruling rules no capital gains accrued or arose at the time of conversion of partnership firm into a private limited company under Part IX of the Companies Act and therefore, notwithstanding the non-compliance with clause (d) of proviso to Section 47(xiii) of the Income Tax Act, by reason of premature transfer of shares, the said company is not liable to pay capital gains tax-AIT-2010-93-AAR Authority for Advance Ruling rules if the purchasers are non-residents other than the applicant, the applicant is liable to pay tax in India on the amount received by it for the support services rendered through the branch office in India-AIT-2010-92 -AAR Jurisdiction of Dispute Resolution Panel-Income Tax Order No.3 Employment of washing process in the manufacture of agglomerates etc from imported plastic waste and scrap-SEZ Instruction No.48 Haryana Government imposes surcharge ranging from 0.25 per cent to 0.7 per cent on VAT Service Tax Notification No. 17/2010 which exempts the taxable service providing packaged or canned software, intended for single use and packed accordingly amended-Service Tax Notification No.18 Procurement, Import and Export of Prohibited and Restricted Goods by SEZ Units-SEZ Instruction No. 47 Authority for Advance Ruling rules the amounts received/receivable by Technopromexport from NTPC under contract for Offshore supply of all plant and equipment including mandatory spares are not liable to tax in India under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and DTAA between India and Russia-AIT-2010-79-AAR

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.