Alert Netizens catch CBEC on the wrong foot
An alert netizen brought to our attention the lethargic approach of CBEC in drafting the Explanatory Notes on Excise.
It may be noted that Notification 15/2009-CE dated July 7, 2009 seeks to amend Notification 5/2006-CE dated March 1, 2006 whereby the effective rate of duty for articles of jewellery on which brand name or trade name is indelibly affixed or embossed on the articles of jewellery itself is proposed as NIL. The entry in Column No. 4 at S. No. 26 of Notification 5/2006-CE is substituted with ‘Nil' by the amending notification.
However, in the Explanatory Notes on Excise, this proposed amendment is explained as follows:
71.1. Excise duty on articles of jewellery, on which brand name or trade name is indelibly affixed or embossed on the article of jewellery itself, has been reduced from 2% to ‘nil' [S. No. 26 of notification No. 10/2006- Central Excise has been amended vide notification No. 17/2009-Central Excise].
Sl. No. 26 of Notification No. 10/2006 is “medical Equipments” and the duty is 8%. And Notification 17/2009- CX ., Dated: July 7, 2009 does amend Notification No. 10/2006, but not Sl. No. 26.
The Explanatory Note should have read as, “(Sl. No. 26 of Notification No. 5/2006- Central Excise has been amended vide Notification No. 15/2009- Central Excise)"
Both the amended notification and the amending notification were wrongly mentioned in the relevant paragraph of the Explanatory Notes. This cannot be brushed aside as typographical error because it involves mention of two notifications. The apparent error has no consequence on the effective rate of duty on the articles of jewellery because there is no mistake in the relevant notifications. Even we would have missed this, but for an alert netizen pointing out this anomaly. The netizen requested TIOL to bring this to the notice of the trade and the authorities concerned. DDT thanks the alert netizen for bringing this error to our notice.
This once again highlights the sluggishness with which our expert draftsmen work in the Government. What if the wrong notification was quoted in the amending notification itself? Will it not lead to confusion in the trade and industry? Why can't they employ some smart proof readers who have some knowledge of taxing statutes to curb such mistakes? After all, this was a document presented to Parliament and the Babus should not relax under the knowledge that no MP would read all this.