TIOL-DDT 2460 · 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 align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><s><strong><font size="2"><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=20079"><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/limca_book2014_1.jpg" alt="DDT in Limca Book of Records - Third Time in a row" width="250" height="123" hspace="5" border="0" align="right"></a></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></strong></s><strong><font color="#663399" size="3">TIOL-DDT 2460 </font><br>
21.10.2014 <br>
Tuesday </strong></font></p>
<p align="center"><em><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Determination of <font color="#FF0000">place of removal</font> - CBEC Clarification</font></strong></font></em></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>PLACE</strong> of Removal has been defined in the CENVAT Credit Rules in the last Budget by inserting sub rule "qa” in Rule 2. The definition reads as:</font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>'(qa) "place of removal” means- </em></font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) a factory or any other place or premises of production or manufacture of the excisable goods; </font></em></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises wherein the excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty; </font></em></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(iii) a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory, </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">from where such goods are removed;' </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">This definition is exactly identical to the definition of <em>Place of Removal</em> as per Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In the CENVAT Credit Rules, input services include certain services up to the <em>Place of Removal</em>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now where exactly is this <em>Place of Removal</em>? This has been a long and much revived dispute in Central Excise. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC had issued two Circulars namely <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=31&filename=notification/37B/2003.htm" target="_blank">37B order no 59/1/2003 dt 3-3-2003</a> and <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=41&filename=notification/servicetax/2007/sercir97.htm" target="_blank">circular no 97/8/2007 dt. 23.8.2007</a>, which sought to suggest that <strong>the place where sale takes place </strong>is the place of removal. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then, where does Sale take place?</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Board clarified that as: <strong>the place where the transfer in property of goods takes place from the seller to the buyer. </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">How do you know where the transfer in property takes place? Board says go to the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. And Board says even the Tribunal said so in <em>Associated Strips Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi</em> <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=34&filename=legal/cestat/2002/2002-TIOL-437-CESTAT-DEL.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="1">2002-TIOL-437-CESTAT-DEL</font></strong></a>, wherein the Tribunal observed, </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">"17. Now we are to consider the facts of the present case as to find out when did the transfer of possession of the goods to the buyer occur or when did the property in the goods pass from the seller to the buyer. Is it at the factory gate as claimed by the appellant or is it at the place of the buyer as alleged by the Revenue? In this connection it is necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act provides that where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred. Intention of the parties are to be ascertained with reference to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case. Unless a different intention appears; the rules contained in Sections 20 to 24 are provisions for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer. Section 23 provides that where there is a contract for the sale of unascertained or future goods by description and goods of that description and in a deliverable state are unconditionally appropriated to the contract, either by the seller with the assent of the buyer or by the buyer with the assent of the seller, the property in the goods thereupon passes to the buyer. Such assent may be expressed or implied and may be given either before or after the appropriation is made. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 further provides that where, in pursuance of the contract, the seller delivers the goods to the buyer or to a carrier or other bailee (whether named by the buyer or not) for the purposes of transmission to the buyer, and does not reserve the right of disposal, he is deemed to have unconditionally appropriated the goods to the contract.” </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The CBEC in its latest clarification issued yesterday reiterates: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" style="background-color:#FFFF00" span="span">The place of removal needs to be ascertained in term of provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Payment of transport, inclusion of transport charges in value, payment of insurance or who bears the risk are not the relevant considerations to ascertain the place of removal, <strong>the place where sale has taken place or when the property in goods passes from the seller to the buyer is the relevant consideration to determine the place of removal. </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Easier said than done. As far as excise officers in the field are concerned, there are only two principles or rules: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. In the Central Excise Assessments, include the cost of transport in the assessable value irrespective of the place of sale or place of removal. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. In CENVAT Credit, don't allow credit for outward transport irrespective of the place of removal. </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There are hundreds of cases pending at various stages because the Department refuses to understand the concept of valuation or CENVAT Credit. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/notDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=MTcyMTU=" target="_blank"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">CBEC CIRCULAR NO. 988/12/2014-CX., Dated: October 20, 2014 </font></strong></a></p>
<p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><em><strong><font color="#006600">Place of Removal - Hard to place </font></strong></em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> definition of "place of Removal” has perhaps contributed the maximum amount of litigation in Central Excise. The Department's irresistible urge to levy excise duty on transport charges was and still is the main reason for all the disputes. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In 1995, the Supreme Court in the <em>Madras Rubber Factory </em>case - <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=32&filename=legal/sc/2002/2002-TIOL-49-SC-CX-LB.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="1">2002-TIOL-49-SC-CX-LB</font></strong> </a>held that<em> in cases where the goods are sold in the course of wholesale trade at place or places outside the place of removal, i.e., at depots, as in the case of Madras Rubber Factory, the expenses incurred in maintaining and running the said depots cannot be deducted from the price but the cost of transportation along with the cost of insurance on freight can be deducted as held in Bombay Tyre International. This holding does not, of course, prevent the assessees from representing their case to the Government if they are so advised in this behalf and it is for the Government to consider the same in the light of all relevant circumstances</em>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then the definition of Place of Removal read as: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>"Place of removal” means </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(i) a factory or any other place or premises where the excisable goods are produced or manufactured; </font></em></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(ii) a warehouse or any other place or premises where any excisable goods have been permitted to be deposited without payment of duty according to rules and from where such goods are removed. </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The MRF judgement came in 1995 and P. Chidambaram became the Finance Minister in 1996. In his 1996 Budget, he amended the above provision to insert a third clause which read as: </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">iii. a depot, premises of a consignment agent or any other place or premises from where the excisable goods are to be sold after their clearance from the factory. </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The MRF judgement was successfully undone! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">But can transportation be really brought under excise control? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Arguing in the famous<em> Bombay Tyre International</em> case -<strong> <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=32&filename=legal/sc/2002/2002-TIOL-374-SC-CX-LB.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">2002-TIOL-374-SC-CX-LB</font></a></strong>, Nani Palkhiwala propounded three principles, which he contended, formed the essential characteristics of a duty of excise. </font></p>
<blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Firstly, excise is a tax on manufacture or production and not on anything else. </em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Secondly, uniformity of incidence is a basic characteristic of excise. </font></em></p>
<p align="justify"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">And thirdly, the exclusion of post-manufacturing expenses and post-manufacturing profits is necessarily involved in the first principle and helps to achieve the second. </font></em></p>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/NewsDesc.php?MpoQSrPnM=ODcwMw==" target="_blank">DDT 1066 - 05.03.2009</a></strong>, I wrote, <font color="#FF0000"><em>Revenue seems to be having a love for realising Revenue on freight. They have been fighting hundreds of cases in all appellate forums to get that extra pie of excise duty on transport charges. Right from the Supreme Court down to some rare ‘reasonable' Commissioners, everyone had been repeatedly telling them, "your duty is on manufacture, not transport” - but they don't listen. Whatever you write in your Rules, the fact remains that you cannot simply levy excise duty on transport charges. </em></font></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF0000"><em><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">One reason for such frivolous appeals even after the issue had been settled long ago is, ‘the Revenue thinks they have no costs for litigation'. </font></em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">To add to the confusion, they imported the concept of "place of removal” to CENVAT Credit and litigation continues unabated. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Can't they give a two-line clarification that transport charges are not to be included in the assessable value and that credit will be allowed on transportation charges? The whole concept of ‘place of removal' should be removed from the statute. </font></p>
<p align="center"><em><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Transport Charges - the US Law </font></strong></font></em></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>SECTION</strong> 53.92 of the Code of Federal Regulations Title 27 stipulates: </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Transportation, delivery, insurance, or installation charges</em> - (1) <em>Charges incurred pursuant to sale</em>. Charges for transportation, delivery, insurance, installation, and other expenses actually incurred in connection with the delivery of an article to a purchaser pursuant to a bona fide sale shall be excluded from the sale price in computing the tax. Such charges include all items of transportation, delivery, insurance, installation, and similar expense incurred after shipment to a customer begins, in response to the customer's order, pursuant to a bona fide sale. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Only actual expenses to be excluded.</em> Where a separate charge is made for transportation or other expenses incurred in connection with the delivery of an article to the purchaser pursuant to a bona fide sale, there shall be excluded in arriving at the sale price subject to tax only that portion of the charge which represents the actual expenses incurred for the transportation or other excludable expenses. Where a separate charge is less than the actual expense, the difference is presumed to be included in the billed price. Such difference, together with the separate charge, shall be excluded in arriving at the sale price on which the tax is computed. Similarly, where no separate charge is made but the manufacturer, producer, or importer incurs an expense of the type to which this paragraph has application, the amount of such expense actually incurred shall be excluded from the sale price on which the tax is computed. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><em>Transportation, delivery, or installation services performed by manufacturer. </em> For purposes of computing the taxable sale price of articles, it is immaterial whether the transportation, delivery, or other services of the type to which this paragraph has application are performed by a common carrier or independent agency for or on behalf of the manufacturer, producer, or importer, or are performed by the manufacturer, producer, or importer with the use of its own vehicles or other facilities. Thus, where a manufacturer, producer, or importer performs the transportation, delivery, or other services with its equipment, tools, employees, etc., the cost of such services allocable to the sale of the taxable article shall be excluded. </font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><em><strong><font color="#006600">NACEN Hindupur cleared by FM - Largest Civil Service Academy </font></strong></em></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> debate over the location of NACEN at Hindupur in Andhra Pradesh is over. We understand that the FM has cleared the file. The State Government has given 500 acres of land for this academy. With 500 acres of land, this academy will have the largest land area for any civil service academy in the country. Let us hope that an academy we can all be proud of will come up at Hindupur. </font></p>
<p align="center"><em><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Income Tax Deputy Commissioner in CBI net with 25 lakh bribe </font></strong></font></em></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE </strong>CBI arrested a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in Hyderabad yesterday on the charge of accepting a bribe of Rs. 23 lakhs. The agreed upon bribe amount was Rs. 25 lakhs, out of which Rs. 2 lakhs were for an Inspector. The Deputy Commissioner, the Inspector and a CA who acted as a conduit are under CBI custody. </font></p>
<p align="center"><em><font size="3" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Central Excise Supdt demands a bribe of Rs.3 crore - caught with Rs. 20 lakh. </font></strong></font></em></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>WHILE</strong> the Hyderabad Income Tax Deputy Commissioner was content with 25 lakhs, we hear of a case of a Superintendent of Central Excise in Ludhiana who asked for a bribe of Rs. 3 Crores. He wanted Rs. 60 lakh before Deepavali and collected Rs. 20 lakh yesterday only to be caught red handed. His deepavali will be inside a dark jail. </font></p>
<p align="center"><font size="2" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong><strong><font color="#006600"><em><font size="3">Jurispruden</font></em></font><font size="3"><em><font color="#FF6633" size="4">tiol</font><font color="#006600"> – Wednesday's cases</font></em></font></strong></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><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">Interest on differential duty paid due to price escalation - Issue covered by Supreme Court decision in case of SKF India Ltd - No reason to take different view by following Karnataka High Court decision in BHEL case: HC. </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> issue is whether the assessee is liable to pay interest on differential duty paid on supplementary invoices due to price escalation. The assessee is in appeal before the High Court against the order of Tribunal confirming the demand by following the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in case of <em>SKF India Ltd</em> - <a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=32&filename=legal/sc/2009/2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX.htm" target="_blank"><strong><font size="1">2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX</font></strong></a>. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The assessee tried to distinguish the ratio of SKF India Ltd and relied on the decision of Karnataka High Court in case of<em> BHEL Ltd</em> - <strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=33&filename=legal/hc/2010/2010-TIOL-437-HC-KAR-CX.htm" target="_blank"><font size="1">2010-TIOL-437-HC-KAR-CX</font></a> </strong> which is in favour of the assessee. </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 when Revenue has failed to establish that business was so arranged that more profit could be attributed to eligible unit, even then benefit of Sec 80IA can be denied - NO: HC </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> assessee company set up a new unit for manufacture and sale of Lamination tordials cores and transformers. It was claimed by the assessee that said unit was located in industrially backward area therefore the profits and gains of the said unit were eligible for 100% deduction u/s 80IA. For the purpose, the component of income included the interest income earned by the assessee company on account of charge of overdue interest from customers to whom sales were executed from new unit on account of late payment of their dues and also towards bank interest. The total claim for the deduction u/s 80 IA was at Rs. 65,24,023/-, but the A.O. allowed partial deduction of Rs. 25,93,772/-. The remaining amount was disallowed by the A.O. and the same was upheld by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal allowed entire claim of the assessee. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">THE issue before the Bench is - Whether when the assessee maintains separate books for its unit located in backward area and the Revenue has failed to establish that business was so arranged that more profit could be attributed to the eligible unit, even then benefit of Sec 80IA can be denied. And the answer goes in favour of the assessee. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Customs </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Notfn. 64/88-Cus - It is settled position in law that it is for person who is claiming benefit of exemption Notification to lead evidence to show that he is entitled for the same - Appellant has completely failed in this regard: CESTAT</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong> appellant imported between March and August 1991 medical equipment claiming the benefit of Notification 64/88-Cus dated 01/03/1998 on the strength of a Customs Duty Exemption Certificate issued by the Director General of Health Services. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The conditions mentioned in the certificate were - (i) the appellant undertakes to give free treatment, on an average, to at least 40% of the outdoor patients; (ii) to give free treatment to all indoor patients belonging to families with an income less than Rs. 500/- per month, and to keep for this purpose, at least 10% of all the hospital beds reserved for such patients and to give free treatment at charges either on the basis of income of the patients concerned or otherwise to patients other than those specified above. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See our Columns for the judgements </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until Tomorrow with more <strong>DDT </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have a nice day. </font></strong></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@tiol.in"><strong>vijaywrite@tiol.in </strong></a></font></p>
</body>
</html>