Article Section of this month’s Tax Amicus carries an article titled ‘Refund of excess customs duty paid under self-assessment system’. This article discusses about the issues and implications in obtaining refund under the Indian Customs law when the importer is required to undertake self-assessment of goods and pay duty accordingly.
Notifications & Circular part under Customs portion covers DGFT public notice on amendments made in Appendix 3B under the MEIS Schedule. This issue also summarises various judgments of the Supreme Court on various issues like computation of Customs duties, and levy of interest and penalty in case of non-fulfillment of export obligation; Business satellite receivers are classifiable under sub-heading 8525.20 and Customs notification issued to give effect to FTP provisions is to be interpreted strictly. It also provides a brief on Mumbai CESTAT order holding that vessel used for carrying persons/cargo as well as for towing operations is classifiable under CTH 8901.
Ratio Decidendi under Central Excise portion of this issue of Tax Amicus includes Delhi High Court judgment clarifying that CESTAT has power to grant or extend stay of recovery of demand beyond 365 days from the date the stay order was initially passed. This section also contains several important orders and judgments like Kolkata CESTAT order holding that the value of additional quantity cleared in bonus or promo packs is not includible as promotional expense, since goods were covered under MRP based valuation and Delhi Bench of CESTAT holding that conversion of raw tamarind to tamarind paste is not ‘manufacture’.
Service Tax portion brings to readers summary of interesting case laws like Ahmedabad CESTAT order holding that Cenvat credit on debit note is admissible if it contains all prescribed details and Delhi CESTAT order holding that Cenvat credit of service tax cannot be denied for promotional activity benefitting trading and service activity. Apart from these some more cases are also covered like Mumbai CESTAT order that scope of services is not limited to four corners of the factory, since the services were used for manufacturing activity, Cenvat credit would be admissible.
Ordinance and Notification section in Value Added Tax (VAT) portion contains notifications issued to amend Haryana Value Added Tax Rules, 2003. Ratio Decidendi in this portion highlights Kerala High Court decision on whether the sale of packing materials to the exporters would qualify as sale in the course of export and entitle the appellant to claim exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Further, Delhi High Court order on whether Explanation 2 inserted by the Delhi Value Added Tax (Fourth Amendment) Act, 2012 to Section 2(1)(zd) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 is constitutionally valid or not is also covered under this section.August, 2015/Issue-50