TIOL-DDT 2160 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/inside2.php3?filename=bnews_detail.php3&newsid=17063"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/limca_book2013.jpg" alt="DDT in Limca Book of Records" width="175" height="120" hspace="5" border="0" align="right"></a></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 2160 </font><br>
31.07.2013 <br>
Wednesday </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mobile Apps for Filing I-T Returns - Not Approved by Income Tax Dept </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department, <a href="http://www.incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in"><strong>www.incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in</strong> </a>informs, <em><font color="#FF0000">"There are Mobile applications which are not approved by the Income Tax Department. Users are advised that they may not be according to Department's data structure. Filers using them would be doing so at their own risk." </font></em></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Scheduled formulations subjected to re-printing, re-labeling, re-packing or stickeringin pursuance of DPCO provisions granted CE exemption. </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> Central Government has granted conditional exemption to '<font color="#FF0000"><em><strong>scheduled formulations</strong></em></font>' as defined under the<strong> DPCO, 2013</strong> falling under Chapter 30 of the CETA, 1985 and which are subjected to<strong> re-printing, re-labeling,</strong> <strong>re-packing</strong> or<strong> stickering,</strong> in a premises which is <u><strong>not registered</strong></u> under the CEA, 1944 or the CER, in pursuance of the provisions contained in the said DPCO, from whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon subject to the following conditions, namely, </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) The scheduled formulations, in respect of which the manufacturer is liable to ensure that the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of such formulation does not exceed the ceiling price within forty-five days of the date of notification of the ceiling price by National Pharmaceuticals Pricing Authority (NPPA), have been removed from the place of removal on payment of appropriate duty ; </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) The re-printing, re-labeling, re-packing or stickering, of the scheduled formulations results in <strong>downward revision</strong> of the MRP; </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iii) In respect of a given scheduled formulation, the exemption shall be valid for a period of forty-five days from the date of publication of the notification of the ceiling price in respect of such scheduled formulation by NPPA or such extended period not exceeding thirty days as may be permitted by the Department of Pharmaceuticals; </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iv) The manufacturer shall submit a prior intimation to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, containing a list of scheduled formulations requiring re-printing, re-labeling, re-packing or stickering alongwith the notification vide which these have been notified by NPPA, various locations and addresses thereof where the scheduled formulations are proposed to be re-printed, re-labelled, re-packed or stickered and the details such as description of the scheduled formulation, present MRP, proposed MRP, batch no., quantity and date of manufacture in respect of each such location. In the case of importer and marketer, they shall submit the intimation to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, having jurisdiction over their registered office; </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(v) Subsequent to the aforesaid operations being carried out, the manufacturer shall submit the details in respect of the said scheduled formulations within a period of one month of such re-printing, re-labeling, re-packing or stickering. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Admittedly, scheduled formulations falling under Chapter Heading 3004 are notified in the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944 and any process in relation to these goods involving packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labeling or re-labeling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer shall amount to manufacture u/s 2(f)(iii) of the CEA, 1944. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">So, as not to impose any duty liability that arises because of the aforesaid process, of re-printing, re-labeling, re-packing or stickering, mandated by the DPCO but being construed as manufacture u/s 2(f) of the CEA, 1944, the Central government has in its wisdom issued the exemption notification. Nonetheless, what would be the duty liability if this activity is carried out by a formulation manufacturer in his registered manufacturing premises is a foregone conclusion. Also, if the ‘premises' carries a dealer registration whether he too would be out of this exemption remains unanswered. Another interesting fact is that the re-printing, re-labeling, re-packing or stickering, of the scheduled formulations should result in <em><strong>downward revision</strong></em> of the MRP else duty liability is attracted. A similar issue was discussed long back by the Board in <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/excise/2001/excircular576.htm" target="_blank">Circular 576/13/2001-CX</a></strong>, dated May, 16, 2001.</font></p>
<p><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2013/etariff13_22.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notification No. 22/2013-CX., Dated: July 29, 2013 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Still waiting for New form ST-3 </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>VIDE</strong> order no. <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=40&filename=notification/servicetax/2013/order_13_03.htm" target="_blank">3/2013-ST</a></strong> dated April, 23, 2013, the CBEC had extended the last date of e-filing of Service Tax Return (ST 3) for the period October, 2012 to March, 2013 from 25th April to 31st August, 2013. The circumstances of a special nature which warranted the above extension was mentioned as follows - </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>"The Form ST-3, for the period from 1st October 2012 to 31st March 2013, is expected to be available on ACES around 31st of July, 2013".</em> </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The ACES website in the “What's New” section still blinks with this “NEW” announcement - </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">2. CBEC extends the last date of e-filing of Service Tax Return (ST 3) for the period October, 2012 to March, 2013 from 25th April to 31st August, 2013. The return utility for this period is expected to be made available in ACES in July, 2013; the exact date of the availability will be announced later. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<div align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">WE had at the start of the month in <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTgxMDc=" target="_blank">DDT 2138</a> </strong> made a gentle request to the Board to honour its commitment. When the third week of July was drawing to a close, through <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTgyMzU=" target="_blank">DDT 2152</a></strong> we once again reminded and brought to the notice of the Board that the assessees are getting jittery and the Board shouldn't delay the announcement OR for that matter the form ST-3 itself? </font></div>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Today is the last day of July, 2013. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Before the sun sets down, we hope that the ‘blinkers' are removed and the ST-3 form makes its appearance! </font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ACES
Mess - Woes of an Assessee - Low Priority for Helpdesk? </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>WE</strong> received this mail from a worried assesse. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"The service tax return for the period July 2012 - September 12 was due for filing on or before 30 April 2013 vide Order No.02/2013-Service Tax dated 12 April 2013. Accordingly, we have filed the service tax return for the period July 12 - Sept 12 on 30 April 2013. After filing the service tax return, the complete set of return was not available as per the below instructions: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Xxx<u> After uploading the return to ACES, the status of the return can be checked under RET-> e-Filing -> View XML Status and the filed return can be viewed under 'View Original ST3' and 'View ST3' options in the RET module" of ACES after a few days (the exact date to be announced later). </u></font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">However, the system has generated the acknowledgment upon acceptance of the return, which were available from RET -> Print Acknowledgement Receipt. The acknowledgment generated through system is reproduced as below. </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>The XML file for the Form-ST3 (Return under Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994) for the year 2012, Jul-Sep has been UPLOADED successfully. The status of the XML UPLOAD can be viewed after one business day through the RET->eFiling->View XML status option . If the status is FILED, it would mean successful filing of the Return. Then, the Return can be viewed anytime through the RET->View Original ST3 option. <strong><u>The Return can be revised for making good errors, if any, or for any other change ONCE, within 90 days from the date of filing. i.e., on or before 29/07/2013.</u></strong> </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Date : 30/04/2013 <br>
Assessee Name : XYZ <br>
Assessee Registration Number : AAACA8696JST001<br>
Commissionerate : PUNE<br>
Division : SERVICE TAX DIVISION <br>
Range : SERVICE TAX GROUP-I<br>
Filed By : Self</font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Due to some clerical errors, we were required to revise the service tax return. However, based upon the acknowledgment we undertake to revise the return on the last date as specified in the acknowledgment i.e. on 29 July 2013. The mysterious result comes out upon uploading the XML file on the ACES website: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Return cannot be revised, either it is not filed, or it is beyond the allowed period (90 days) of filing return, or it is already revised. </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In view of the rejection of return, we have contacted ACES Helpdesk under the impression that helpdesk will turn around quickly on our query. As expected, we received the mail from help desk on the very next day i.e. on 30 July 2013 stating the issue has been escalated to higher ups. Fortunately, the Help desk attendant has sent us the mail trail while responding to our query. It was surprise; the issue has assigned priority as <strong>“Low”</strong>. </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dear Sir/Madam, </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Regarding your complaint, it has been logged and escalated to the application team. Once we receive the solution, we will intimate the same to you. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your complaint ticket number is <strong>IM000000 </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">For further details feel free to call our toll free number 1800 425 425 1 </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thanks & Regards </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">ACES Service Desk <br>
Toll Free Number: 1800 425 4251 <br>
E-mail: <a href="mailto:aces.servicedesk@icegate.gov.in"><strong>aces.servicedesk@icegate.gov.in </strong></a><br>
Website:<strong> <a href="http://www.aces.gov.in/">http://www.aces.gov.in/ </a></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Sent: </strong>Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:52 AM <br>
<strong>Subject:</strong> FW: FW: Revised return - uploading issue...SD00226721 </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Dear Team, </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ticket number: IM00205975</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color:#FF0000">Ticket Priority: Low </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Issue:</strong> We are trying to upload revised return for the period July 12 - September 12, the original Service Tax return was filed on 30 April 2013. The acknowledgment generated upon submission of the return states that service tax return can be revised on or before 29 July 2013. Accordingly, we have uploaded revised return, however the system is responding in negative way as "<font color="#FF0000">either it is beyond 90 days or it is already revised</font>". </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We missed the last bus and now we are helpless, as we may not be able to revise the return for the period July 12 - Sept 12. Although, the law provides 90 days period to revise the return, the system has deprived our benefit to revise return. And no physical filing is accepted. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">A day is very precious. In the meanwhile if EA-2000 or even CERA audit takes place, we don't have any option other than to accept a charge of suppression or mis-declaration, as we could not file revised return. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We understands the value of a day, however Help Desk attendants could not, as probably they are not aware about the severity of the provisions and hence the issue has been marked as “Low” Priority. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF0000" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Why we should be penalized for no mistake on our part? Only because we relied on the acknowledgment generated through system? Or on the part of technical snags in Systems?” </font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Cus - Valuation - <em>Prima facie</em> Royalty is payable on ‘reproduced' goods which had no relation with imported goods - applicants have made out case for stay </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> undisputed facts of the case are that the applicants are related to their foreign supplier. They had imported <font color="#FF0000"><em><strong>Gerbera Clump</strong></em></font> i.e tissue culture. </font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/Gerbera.jpg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="121" height="160" hspace="5" border="0" align="center"></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">[<strong>Gerbera</strong> is a genus of ornamental plants from the sunflower family. It was named in honour of the German botanist and naturalist Traugott Gerber. Gerbera is very popular and widely used as a decorative garden plant or as cut flowers. Gerbera is also important commercially. It is the fifth most used cut flower in the world (after rose, carnation, chrysanthemum and tulip.).] </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As per the agreement, the applicants are required to pay royalty on <em><strong>reproduction</strong></em> of the plant from the import clumps. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The revenue is of the view that the payment of royalty is the pre-condition of the imported goods (<em>and hence this is to be added into the AV</em>). </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Aggrieved by this stand of the Revenue, the applicant is before the CESTAT. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Bench observed -</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"</font><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. Prima facie going through the terms of the agreement, we find that the royalty is payable on the reproduced goods, which had no relation with the imported goods. Therefore, applicants have made out a case for stay of operation of the impugned order. Accordingly, we stay operation of the impugned order."</font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As the issue is of recurring nature, the application for early hearing was also allowed. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See <font size="1"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/caseLawDet.php?QoPmnXyZ=ODkyOTY=" target="_blank">2013-TIOL-1152-CESTAT-MUM </a></font></font></strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Jurispruden</font><font color="#FF6633" size="5">tiol</font><font color="#006600"> – Thursday's cases</font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></p>
<p><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/ddt_hammer.jpg" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="100" height="84" hspace="5" border="0" align="left">Central Excise </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Paper - Exemption for clearances up to 3500 MTs - Notification No. 6/2001-CE dated 1.3.2001 - Whether weight of wrapping paper included in total weight. In ordinary course of selling finished products nobody bills separately for packing. - CESTAT by majority </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>IN</strong> these cases, the two appellants were manufacturing both items paper for sale like Duplex Board and also wrapper paper for wrapping such paper products for sale. The wrapper paper manufactured by them were used in the factory of the manufacturer, without payment of duty, for packing the paper products for sale manufactured by them and cleared outside the factory. The appellants were availing exemption under Notification 6/2001-CE (S. No. 86) dated 01-03-2001 and Notification 06/2002-CE (S. No.86) dated 01-03-2002 for different periods involved. This exemption was available only for the first clearances of paper up to a quantity of 3500 MT, in a financial year. The case made out by Revenue is that for reckoning the quantity of first clearances the appellant had taken into account only paper products for sale cleared outside the factory and not the wrapping paper used for wrapping such products sold. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Income Tax </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Whether income earned from betting placed on live telecast of horse race falls within purview of royalty, and hence, is liable to TDS - NO: ITAT </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>WHETHER</strong> income earned from betting placed on live telecast of horse race falls within the purview of royalty, and thus, is liable to TDS provisions and Whether live telecast of such events amounts to creation of any 'work' as defined u/s 2(y) of the Act. And the verdict goes against the Revenue. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Service Tax </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">BAS - since appellants are providing various services to IBP Company/IOCL and are covered under Clause (i), (iii) & (iv) of definition of Business Auxiliary Service apart from being Commission Agent, benefit of Notification 13/2003-ST has rightly been denied to them: CESTAT </font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>I.B.P </strong>Company and IOC have set up retail outlets at different places and have installed at those premises apparatus for storage and delivery of petroleum products and machines for air, cold water and other facilities. For running these outlets for retail sale of petroleum products and to render other services at the said premises I.B.P/IOC engaged the appellants as contractors. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Department was of the view that these services fell under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our Columns Thursday for the judgements</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Thursday with more <strong>DDT </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice day. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mail your comments to</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com"><strong>vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com </strong></a></font></p>
</body>
</html>