ait-news-62

Refined or white sugar, imported upto 31st December 2010 exempted from Customs duty-Customs Tariff Notification No.8 excise exemption notification for Jammu & Kashmir modified-Central Excise Tariff Notification No.1 Air India may lower retirement age to 55 to cut cost Board of Approval to decide fate of denotification of Essar's Hazira SEZ on 11th February Revenue's comments on 1st Discussion Paper on GST-click on the link below for details SC rules service of notice on the assessee under Section 143(2) within the prescribed period of time is a pre-requisite for framing the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961-AIT-2010-43-SC HC rules assessee is entitled to benefit under Income Tax on delayed payment of PF if the payment is made before the return is filed-AIT-2010-42-HC Authority for Advance Ruling rules the amount received by the foreign company from the Government of Tamil Nadu under the contract is essentially in the nature of “fees for technical services” within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with Article 12.4 of DTAA and cannot be regarded as consideration for the sale of designs and drawings-AIT-2010-38-AAR Authority for Advance Ruling rules payment received by the applicant from VARs (“third party re-sellers”) on account of supplies of software products to the end-customers (from whom the licence fee is collected and appropriated by VAR) does not result in income in the nature of royalty to the applicant and moreover payments received by the applicant cannot be taxed as business profits in India in the absence of permanent establishment as envisaged by Article 7 of the India-Japan Tax Treaty-AIT-2010- 36-AAR lending or borrowing money between two associated enterprises comes within the ambit of international transaction and whether the same is at arms length price has to be considered-The question of rate of interest on the borrowing loan is an integral part of arms length price redetermination in this context-AIT-2010-37-ITAT Export and Import of Currency-RBI Circular No.30 HC rules a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable for questioning reopening of the assessment in a case such as this where the preconditions for the exercise of the power have not been fulfilled-recourse to the power under Section 147 cannot be sustained on a mere change of opinion, there being no failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts necessary for assessment-AIT-2010-35-HC Definitive Anti dumping duty imposed on import of Carbon Black used in rubber applications falling under sub heading 2803 00 10, originating in, or exported from, Australia, China PR, Russia and Thailand-Customs Tariff Notification No.6 Tariff Value for import of Brass scrap is 3597 and for poppy seeds 4392-Customs Non-Tariff Notification No. 10 Adjustment of “Advance Tax in respect of Fringe Benefits” for Assessment Year 2010-11 against “Advance Tax”-Income Tax Circular No.2 CBDT clarifies it is the choice of the assessee whether to file an objection before the Dispute Resolution panel against the draft assessment order or not to exercise this option and file an appeal later before CIT (Appeals) against the assessment order passed by the AO

JUDGMENTS

CENTRAL EXCISE

CUSTOMS

exchange rate

SERVICE TAX

INCOME TAX

VAT

FINANCE ACTS

FINANCE BILLS

EOU STPI

SEZ

DGFT

RBI

NTT

RESOURCES

Email | Print

FinMin spoils Rebate Party of J&K and North-East on AIT Report

AIT News Network

NEW DELHI. Acting on the Report of Allindiantaxes ; Finance Ministry has finally spoiled the Rebate Party of Jammu & Kashmir,North-East,Kutch and Sikkim Units by issuing directions to the concerned Officials that the Units working in Excise Free Zones are not entitled to Rebate on export as they are not paying any Central Excise duty but are availing exemption from duty. The officials have also been directed to issue notices to all those Units to whom Rebate claims have been irregularly sanctioned by the Department.

The Government had also taken the Opinion of Law Ministry who opined that the term ‘duty paid’ used in rule 18 of Central Excise Rules does not include that portion of duty, which is subsequently refunded to the manufacturer. It was also opined that the amount so refunded to the manufacturer is to be treated as an exemption and rebate of the said amount cannot be paid.

The Story reported by Allindiantaxes is as under:

FinMin in Santa Mode: Doles out Rebate when no duty paid: Double Your Money Scam all set to shake North Block

AIT News Network

JAMMU. What may perhaps be another Rs.100 Crore scam going to shock even the mandarins of the Finance Ministry; is grant of Rebate by Maritime Commissioners on goods manufactured in Tax Heaven of Jammu & Kashmir on which no duty is legally paid but the rebate is being illegally claimed on export of these goods.

Though on one hand Hon’ble Finance Minister is leaving no stone unturned for plugging the Revenue leakage, Double Your Money in no time is the new buzzword for manufacturers and exporters.

The modus operandi is simple:

Step 1. Set up a Unit in Jammu & Kashmir and avail the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 56/2002.

Step2: Pay Rs.10 lakh on goods manufactured and cleared as prescribed under Notification No.56/2002

Step 3: Get Refund of Rs.10 lakh paid as provided under Notification No.56/2002

Step 4: Export the same goods. Get Rebate of another Rs.10 Lakh.

Thus on an investment of Rs.10 Lakh ; the Government is in fact giving a return of Rs.20 Lakh.

According to sources this incentives without legal backing are being given to some of the manufactures allegedly on the basis of unreported clarification given to the field formations by the Central Board of Excise & Customs.

R.S.Sharma, Well Known Indirect Tax Expert told allindiantaxes.com that granting of Rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the goods directly exported from Jammu Units through Merchant Exporters, in addition to the refund granted under the said Notification No.56/2002-CE is illegal as the Notification No. 56/2002-CE is an exemption notification issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 granting exemption to the goods manufactured in the specified areas of Jammu region. A suitable mechanism has been incorporated in exemption Notification to operationalize the exemption wherein the the manufacturer is first required to pay the excise duty and thereafter, whatever is paid in cash is to be refunded. In terms of Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, there is a special dispensation to the manufacturers to take CENVAT credit of duty paid on the goods bought from the units of Jammu region and used in the manufacture of subsequent final products. However, there is no such special dispensation for admissibility of rebate under Rule 18.

Under Notification No. 56/2002-CE, effectively no duty is being paid on the goods cleared and in addition, they are getting rebate of duty @ rate of 16% of value of goods which is never paid.

It has been reportedly learnt that the alleged clarification given by the Board has given indication that payment of duty under the said Notification is also payment of duty for the purpose of granting rebate under Rule 18. It seems to be incorrect in as much as since Notification No. 56/2002-CE is an exemption Notification under Section 5A i.e. no duty is being paid effectively, grant of rebate under Rule 18 in the absence of special dispensation as in the case of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, is a double benefit resulting into revenue loss in crores of rupees, which needs to be addressed immediately.

In view of above Allindiantaxes.com suggests:

FinMin should give equal opportunities( as guaranteed under Constitution of India) to all manufacturers exporters to double their money by claiming first Refund and thereafter Rabate of the same amount by issue of a Circular that the Rebate is also admissible in addition to Refund under the said Notification and Rebate Party is open for all manufacturers exporters as granting of rebate in addition to refund in the above manner has resulted in loss of business opportunity to those manufactures who are not claiming such rebate vis-à-vis manufacturers who have claimed rebates and have offered lower prices of the products to their buyers.

Immediate directions should be issued to stop Rebate Party and to recover the rebate granted erroneously. Possibility of the same fate for North East units or units in Kutch region cannot be ruled out. But whether Intelligence Agencies will be able to trace merchant exporters who have availed the Rebate or not; is a big question as their addresses are neither verified at the time of issue of IEC Code nor at the time of grant of Rebate.