Contaminated views?
AFTER we carried the Stay order passed by the CESTAT, WZB in the case of Common Effluent Treatment Plant (2012-TIOL-1411-CESTAT-Mum) yesterday, we received a mail from a netizen who has a radically different view on the subject issue.
Rather than passing any judgment on the said conclusion arrived at by the netizen, we felt it prudent to carry the same and allow the readers to air their views -
This concerns the Stay order passed by the CESTAT in the case of CETP and as reported by you yesterday. Since the matter was posted for hearing on the 4th September, 2012, I do not know whether the final order has already been passed by now. Be that as it may, it is my humble view that the beneficial retrospective amendment carried by the Finance Act, 2012 should be construed to be meant only for the effluent treatment plant set up by the "association of dyeing units" and not all the industries per se .
My analysis titled "Dyeing" Effluents is as follows -
++ Extracts from a Case study -
Common Effluent Treatment Plant for Thane Belapur Maharashtra Industrial Development Cooperation- A Case Study [By Waskar V.G, Kore S.V and Kore V.S] M.Tech-II student, Assistant Professors at Department of Environment Science and Technology
1. Introduction
Trans Thane Creek (TTC) Area is one of the prestigious industrial belt in Asia comprising of 3500 industrial units covering various categories such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals, dyes, pigment manufacturing, petrochemical, electronics, textile processing, engineering etc. The wastewater from this industrial belt is collected and treated in a Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) at Kopar Khairane - MIDC. The capacity of existing CETP is 12 MLD and 15 MLD which are in operation since January 1998 and 2006 respectively. The CETP is presently treating effluent to desired standard and achieving the disposal norms as specified by Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and also as per the Environment Protection Act 1996. The Infrastructure, Land, Effluent collection and disposal network is provided by Maharashtra Industrial Development and Corporation (MIDC).
++ Section 145 of the Finance Act, 2012 reads -
Validation of exemption given to club or association including cooperative societies in relation to project.
145. (1) The notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) number G.S.R. 566 (E), dated the 25th July, 2011, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994, granting exemption from the whole of service tax leviable under section 66 thereof, on the club or association service referred to in sub-clause (zzze) of clause (105) of section 65 of the said Act, provided by a club or an association including registered cooperative societies, in relation to the project, shall be deemed to have, and deemed always to have, for all purposes, validly come into force on and from the 16th day of June, 2005, at all material times. (32 of 1994)
(2) Refund shall be made of all such service tax which has been collected but which would not have been so collected as if the notification referred to in sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Finance Act, 1994, an application for the claim of refund of service tax shall be made within six months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2012 receives the assent of the President. (32 of 1994)
Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that,-
(i) project means common facility set-up for treatment and recycling of effluents and solid wastes, with financial assistance from the Central Government or a State Government;
(ii) the provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, shall be applicable in case of refunds under this section. (1 of 1944)
++ Kindly take a look at the exemption notification dated 25.07.2011. It reads -
"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts club or association service referred to in sub-clause (zzze) of clause (105) of section 65 of the said Act, provided by an association of dyeing units in relation to the project, from the whole of service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the Finance Act.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this notification, project means common facility set-up for treatment and recycling of effluents and solid waste discharged by dyeing units, with financial assistance from the central or state government.
++ By a notification 01/2012-ST, dated 17.03.2012, the following amendments were made to the aforesaid notification 42/2011-ST -
"In the said notification,-
(i) for the words "of dyeing units", the words ",including registered cooperative societies," shall be substituted;
(ii) in the Explanation, the words "discharged by dyeing units", shall be omitted."
++ This would mean that from 17.03.2012, the exemption cannot be restricted to the Common facility set up for treatment and recycling of effluents and solid waste discharged by dyeing units. Meaning to say, it is extended to all units which discharge effluents and solid waste. So, if the CETP was providing Club or Association services to members "other than dyeing units" and collecting charges this amount be subject to Service Tax for the period from 25.07.2011 to 16.03.2012.
++ And if this be so, since the retrospective amendment (w.e.f 16.06.2005) relates to the original notification dated 25.07.2011 and not its amended form, can it be argued that the retrospective exemption [for the period 16.06.2005 to 24.07.2011] should be restricted to those clubs or associations which provided common facility for treatment and recycling of effluents discharged by dyeing units ONLY & not to all UNITS. I feel that a simple addition of the words "as amended" while referring to the notification in the aforesaid section 145 of the Finance Act, 2012 would not have created such a furore or is it a storm in a teacup."
DDT requests netizens to respond.