Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

New Business Permissions – VAT – CST – GST – Started By: – Raf Deys – Dated:- 18-9-2014 Last Replied Date:- 30-12-1899 – Dear Experts,I am planning to start wholesale and retail business of ready-made garments Business will be based in Andhra Pradesh, but it will be spread across several states.What are all the registrations that I need to do?Do I need to………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Rate of exchange of conversion of each of the foreign currency with effect from 19th September, 2014 – Customs – 87/2014 – Dated:- 18-9-2014 – [TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, PART-II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (ii), EXTRAORDINARY] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS Notification No.87/2014-Customs (N.T.) Dated the 18th September, 2014 27 Bhadrapada, 1936(SAKA) S.O. (E). – In exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in super session of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No.75/2014-CUSTOMS (N.T.), dated the 4th September, 2014 vide number S.O. 2229 (E), dated the 4th September, 2014, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such super session, the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) hereby determines that the rate of exchange of conversion of each of the foreign currency specified in column (2) of each of Schedule I and Schedule II annexed hereto into Indian currency or vice versa shall, with effect from 19th September, 2014 be the rate mentioned against it in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof, for the purpose of the said section, relating to imported and export goods. SCHEDULE-I S. No. Foreign Currency Rate of exchange of one unit of foreign currency equivalent to Indian rupees (1) (2) (3) (a) (b) (For Imported Goods) (For Export Goods) 1. Australian Dollar 55.55 54.20 2. Bahrain Dinar 167.10 157.90 ………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Amends Notification No. 12/97-CUSTOMS (N.T.), dated the 2nd April, 1997. – Customs – 86/2014 – Dated:- 18-9-2014 – [TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i) ] Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Notification No. 86/2014- Customs (N.T.) New Delhi, the 18th September, 2014 27, Bhadrapada, Saka 1936 G.S.R…..(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (aa) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Customs Act,1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Excise and Customs, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 12/97- CUSTOMS (N.T.), dated the 2nd April, 1997, published in the Gazette of India, vide number G.S.R. 193(E), dated the 2nd April, 1997, namely:- In the said notif………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Exchange Rate of Foreign Currency Relating to Imported and Export Goods Notified – Dated:- 18-9-2014 – In exercise of the powers conferred by section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in super session of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No.75/2014-CUSTOMS (N.T.), dated the 4th September, 2014 vide number S.O. 2229 (E), dated the 4th September, 2014, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such super session, the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) hereby determines that the rate of exchange of conversion of each of the foreign currency specified in column (2) of each of Schedule I and Schedule II annexed hereto into Indian currency or vice versa shall, with effect from 19th September, 2014 be the rate mentioned against it in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof, for the purpose of the said section, relating to imported and export goods. SCHEDULE-I S. No. Foreign Currency Rate of exchange of one unit of foreign currency equivalent to Indian rupees (1) (2) (3) (a) (b) (For Imported Goods) (For Export Goods) 1. Australian Dollar 55.55 54.20 2. Bahrain Dinar 167.10 157.90 3. Canadian Dollar 56.25 54.95 4. Danish Kroner 1………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Date of Payment of the September Instalment of Advance Tax Extended from 15th September 2014 to 15th December 2014 for the Taxpayers in State of Jammu & Kashmir – Dated:- 18-9-2014 – Considering the large-scale devastation in the State of Jammu and Kashmir due to the natural calamity, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has extended the date for payment of second instalment of advan………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Text of the Intervention Made by The Finance Secretary Today in the G20 Deputies Meeting – Dated:- 18-9-2014 – Text of the Intervention Made by The Finance Secretary Today in the G20 Deputies Meeting Wherein he Raised India's Concerns with Regard to Uncertainty and Volatility in External Environment; Calls for G20 Driven Collaborative Solutions to Reduce the Impact of the Possible Near Term Repricing Following is the text of the intervention made by Dr Arvind Mayaram, Finance Secretary during the G-20 Deputies Meeting on the session Global Economy raising India s concerns in Cairns, Australia today: The policies pursued by the Emerging Market Economies to bring growth back have been effective. In India, the Government announced a slew of policy reforms and Budget reflected this in full measure. From 4.7% growth in last fiscal, the Indian economy grew by 5.7% in Q1 of the current Financial Year 2014-15. Business confidence is back and even though still tentative, growth in industrial sector, specially manufacturing, is showing an uptick. We are confident that by pursuing growth inducing policies, the Government would contribute fully to going back to a +7% growth within two to three years. To that extent, India stands committed to the incremental 2% growth in the global GDP. However, while it would be imperative for the Emerging Market Economies including India to continue the path of structural reforms, the uncertainty and volatility in external environment is worrisome and needs the attention of the G20. As the US Fed withdraws from unconventional monetary policy, there will be an overhang on asset prices in the Emerging Markets and therefore, volatility in the currency markets. The decision on the exit from the QE programme ………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Special Economic Zones (Amendment) Rules, 2014 – SEZ – G.S.R. 637(E) – Dated:- 2-9-2014 – MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Commerce) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2014 G.S.R. 637(E). – Whereas, the State of Telangana has been formed under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 ( 6 of 2014) with effect from 2nd June, 2014; Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 55 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (28 of 2005), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006, namely : – 1. (1) Thes………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Instructions in light of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court on Sales Tax Incentive Scheme-reg. – Central Excise – F. No. 6/8/2014-CX.1 – Dated:- 17-9-2014 – F. No. 6/8/2014-CX.1 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise and Customs Dt: 17.09.2014 To The Chief Commissioners of Central Excise (All) Sub: Instructions in light of Judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court on Sales Tax Incentive Scheme-reg. Kind attention is invited to the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Super Synotex India Ltd. [2014-TIOL-19-SC-CX] on the issue of abatement of sales tax under an abatement scheme where the assesse was allowed to retain 75% of the sales tax collected from the buyer and was required to deposit only the remaining 25% with the State Government. Under the circumstances, Hon ble Court held that after 01.07.2000 i.e. under the transaction value regime, 75% of the sales tax retained by the assesse would form part of the assessable value, stating as follows in the paragraph 22, The amount paid or payable to the State Government towards sales tax, VAT, etc. is excluded because it is not an amount paid to the manufacturer tow………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

RBI Reference Rate for US $ – Dated:- 18-9-2014 – The Reserve Bank of India s Reference Rate for the US Dollar is ₹ 61.0558 on September 18, 2014 The corresponding rate for the previous day (September 17, 2014) was ₹ 60.9540 Based on the reference rate for the US Dollar and the middle rates of the cross-currency quotes, the exchange rate of EUR, GBP and JPY against the Rupee are given below: ………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Deduction of TDS with Charge – Income Tax – Started By: – Pradeep Jain – Dated:- 18-9-2014 Last Replied Date:- 30-12-1899 – Dear Sir,We are engaging contractors who are giving services to us under Individual capacity.We are not sure at the time of awarding contract that their services will exceed ₹ 1 cr. in one financial year.Under such circumstances, in case we find in Mar-15 that a particular such contractor has provide………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Service Tax – Dated:- 18-9-2014 – Import of services – programme producers service – non-residents, were required to produce audio-visual coverage of the cricket matches conducted by BCCI and ………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Service Tax – Dated:- 18-9-2014 – Refund claim – issue of taxability – period of limitation – service tax was paid as builder/developer pr………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIGAD Versus MAERSK INDIA PVT LTD – Service Tax – CESTAT MUMBAI – Tri – Classification of service – incidental activity – scope of the contents of agreement – Storage and Warehousing services or not – MIPL is running a container freight station (CFS) – providing space in the warehouses by MIPL – The department was of the view that the provision of space in the warehouses by MIPL came under the category of “storage and warehousing services” and liable to service tax – The appellant contested the demand and submitted that the reservation of space was in the context of cargo-handling of export cargo which was specifically excluded from the scope of “cargo handling service” and hence the demand is not sustainable. Held that:- It is a settled position in law that the substance of an agreement has to be considered and not the wording used in the agreement as held by the honble apex court in the case of Bhopal Sugar [1977 (4) TMI 151 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Therefore, we reject the contention of the appellant that the storage and warehousing services rendered by the appellant to specific customers on specific terms and conditions are activities incidental to cargo handling in respect of export cargo and hence not liable to service tax. From the scope of the levy, as clarified by the Board, which is the apex agency of the Government implementing service tax levy, it is clear that such service rendered by a Container Freight Station is also covered within the scope of the levy. – from the contract, entered into by the appellant, it is seen that the appellant has been undertaking all these activities and therefore squarely come within the definition of storage and warehousing services. Though the clarification issued by the Board is not binding on this Tribunal, it has a persuasive value and should be given due weight. – contention of the appellant rejected – Decided against the assessee. Storage facility in port is a requirement of law as per section 42 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 and therefore, it forms an integral part of the “port services”, This is not the position obtaining in the case before us. The appellant has not produced any evidence before us that storage and warehousing is a statutory requirement under any law governing container freight stations. The very fact that the appellant is providing the said service only to selected customers on collection of separate charges itself would show that this is not a statutory requirement. – Decided against the assessee. Extended period of limitation – Held that:- The various charges for handling of cargo was substantially increased as detailed in paragraph 4 (iii) above. This manipulation is very evident. Therefore, the ld. Adjudicating authority rightly observed that the appellant suppressed collection of service charges by manipulation for the period 1-2-2005 onwards and confirmed the service tax demand. The appellant is operating under the self-assessment regime and therefore, it is his responsibility to correctly assess and discharge the tax liability and reflect the transaction in the ST3 returns filed. – Decided against the assessee. Levy of penalty – Held that:- the penalty imposed under section 76 of the Finance At, 1994 is fully justified in the facts of the present case. However, with respect to the penalty imposed under section 78, in our considered view, the same is not warranted as the issue related to a classification dispute and it is well settled that in classification matters, imposition of penalty is not required. Accordingly we set aside the penalty imposed under section 78. Demand of service tax with interest and penalty u/s 76 confirmed – penalty u/s 78 waived – Decided partly in favor of assessee. – 2014 (9) TMI 596 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – APPEAL No. ST/191/07 & ST/183/07 – - Dated:- 31-7-2014 – P R Chandrasekharan and Ramesh Nair, JJ. For the Appellant : Dr. B.S. Meena, Addl. Comm. (AR) For the Respondent : Shri. Bharat Raichandani, Adv. Per: P R Chandrasekharan ORDER The two appeals, one by the appellant and the other by Revenue, and the cross-objections, are directed against order-in-original No. 12/MJ/(12)/Commr/RGD/Maersk/07-08 dated 05/09/2007 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Commissionerate. Vide the impugned order, the ld. Adjudicating authority has confirmed a service tax demand of ₹ 53,66,874/- along with interest thereon for the period 1-2-2005 to 31-3-2006 apart from imposing an equivalent amount of penalty under both sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The service rendered by the appellant has been classified as Storage and Warehousing services for the purposes of the confirmation of demand. The appellant M/s Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. (MIPL in short) is aggrieved of the classification and consequent confirmation of demand while the Revenue is aggrieved of the dropping of the demand for the period 16-8-2002 to 31-1-2005. Hence the appeals before us. 2. The facts relevant to the case are briefly as follows. M/s MIPL is running a container freight station (CFS) at Dronagiri Warehousing Complex, Uran, Navi Mumbai. They entered into a contract with M/s Maersk Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (MLOG in short) for the period 2002 to 2004 for providing various services at the CFS. As per the said contract, MIPL provided to MLOG space measuring 2100 sq.mtr. in warehouse Nos.4 and 2 for keeping, storing, stuffing and consolidation of export cargo and collected monthly rental of ₹ 10 lakhs for warehouse No. 4 and ₹ 4.35 lakhs for warehouse No. 2. For the period with effect from 1-2-2005, the space provided to MLOG was 3000 sq. mtrs. for the same purpose; however, no separate fixed monthly charges were specified in the contract. However, the rates for cargo handling were substantially increased. The department was of the view that the provision of space in the warehouses by MIPL came under the category of storage and warehousing services and liable to service tax and accordingly demanded service tax vide notice dated 2-4-2007 for an amount of ₹ 1,18,33,342/- for the period 16-8-2002 to 31-3-2006. The appellant contested the demand and submitted that the reservation of space was in the context of cargo-handling of export cargo which was specifically excluded from the scope of cargo handling service and hence the demand is not sustainable. The adjudicating authority, held that the reservation of space in the CFS fell under the category of storage and warehousing service and liable to service tax. However, he held that in as much as the appellant had submitted a letter dated 13-3-2003 and the fact of space reservation was clearly mentioned in the said letter, no suppression can be alleged and held the demand to be time-barred for the period prior to 1-2-2005. In respect of the agreement dated 1-2-2005, he held that the appellant had changed the terms of the contract. While they continued to perform the same services including reservation of space, they deliberately avoided mentioning of the rental for the space reservation and increased the charges for cargo-handling which amounted to deceit on the part of the appellant. Accordingly he confirmed the demand for the period 1-2-2005 along with interest and also imposed equivalent amount of penalty both under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence the appeals before us. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions. 3.1 The nature of the activities undertaken by the appellant consisted of cargo carting, customs examination, cargo stuffing and back to town services and the appellant is registered with the department under the taxable service category of cargo handling services' since 2002. The appellant is discharging service tax in respect of such services pertaining to imported goods. However, since the said service, specifically excluded export cargo from its scope, the question of payment of service tax does not arise in respect of export cargo. 3.2 The activity of storage of export cargo at the CFS is merely incidental to the cargo handling services provided in respect of such cargo. Export cargo that enters the CFS is temporarily stored after carting before examination and stuffing of cargo and hence the essential or dominant nature of the service rendered is cargo handling and not storage or warehousing. 3.3 The CBEC vide circular 334/4/2006-TRU dated 28-2-2006 has clarified that – a composite service, even if it consists of more than one service, should be treated as a single service based on the main or principal service and accordingly classified. The services provided by CFS are essentially in the nature of cargo handling and the storage and warehousing services in respect of export cargo are only incidental to the main activity of cargo handling and therefore, the entire service should be deemed as cargo handling service . The Board vide circular dated 1-8-2002, at the time of inception of levy on storage and warehousing services, had clarified that such services provided by railway and bus stations would not come within the tax net as they are in the nature of passenger terminal services incidental to rail and road transport. 3.4 Reliance is placed on the decision of the hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Dr. Lal Path Lab (P) Limited [(2007) 11 STR 307 (P&H)] wherein, in the context of technical testing and analysis service it was held that if a service is specifically excluded from the scope of the levy of a particular taxable service, the same cannot be included in some other category of taxable service for the purposes of the levy. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Konkan Marine Agencies – 2007-TIOL-1853-CESTAT-BANG affirmed by the hon'ble Karanataka High Court [2009 (13) STR 7 (Kar)} and the decision of the hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala State Industrial Enterprises Ltd. [2011 (28) STR 574 (Ker)] wherein it was held that cargo handling services in respect of export cargo cannot be taxed under port services and handling of export cargo/passenger baggage/mere transportation of goods in respect of cargo handling services' should be liberally construed. The appellant also relies on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Chem. Port Terminal Co. Ltd. wherein it was held by a majority decision that storage and warehousing services rendered as incidental and integral part of port services cannot be classified separately and taxed accordingly. 3.5 It is also argued that the taxable value has been arrived at a notional basis of ₹ 683.33 per sq. Mtr./month in respect of storage and warehousing services and there is no provision under section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 to levy service tax on a notional basis. 3.6 As regards the allegation of suppression and invocation of extended period of time for confirmation of demand, it is submitted that the appellant vide letter dated 13-3-2003 had informed in detail the nature of the activities undertaken by the appellant and the charges collected in respect of these activities. As regards the omission of the charges for reservation of space in the contract dated 14-2-2005, there is no provision in law that an assessee should inform the department of all the contracts entered into with the clients/customers. Since the matter relates to interpretation of law where a different in interpretation has arisen, the invocation of extended period of time for confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty is not warranted and reliance is placed on a few decisions such as K.K. Appachan [2007 (7) STR 230, Jagriti Industries [2001 (127) ELT 841], Chloride India Limited [1994 (72) ELT 435] and Associated Pigments Ltd. [1993 (68) ELT 514]. In the light of the above, it is pleaded that the appeal of MIPL be allowed. 4. The ld. Addl. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue strongly opposed the contentions of the appellant and made the following submissions. 4.1 From the appendix II of the contract between MIPL and MLOG, it is evident that the former had provided 2100 sq. mtr. of space in warehouse Nos. 4 & 2 to the latter and the latter had paid a fixed monthly rental of ₹ 10 lakhs and ₹ 4.35 lakhs to the former for this service in addition to the charges paid for cargo handling. Further, MIPL's obligation also included giving empty space on rental basis, storage, stuffing and handling of export cargo, security, loading and unloading etc. These services provided comes within the scope of storage and warehousing services, as clarified by the Board in circular No. B/11/1/2002-TRU dated 1-8-2002 and as defined in section 65 (102) of Finance Act, 1994. 4.2 The appellant assessee had suppressed the facts about the contract regarding the services provided by MIPL with MLOG and 10 other customer under the category of storage and warehousing services with intent to evade payment of service tax. As regards the letter dated 13-3-2003, the assessee did not enclose the copies of the entire contracts with the said letter but only enclosed a write up about the activities undertaken by them. Though they had mentioned about the collection of space reservation charges, it was stated that the said charge is essentially a part of the handling of export cargo and hence excluded from the scope of service tax. In other words, the assessee did not declare to the department the true scope and nature of the services rendered. Therefore, the extended period of time is rightly invokable and the entire demand is sustainable in law. The dropping of the demand for the period prior to 1-2-2005 by the adjudicating authority is, therefore, erroneous. 4.3 As per the contract dated 1-1-2002 with MLOG, read with Appendix I thereof, clause 2.1 thereof provided for proper storage and handling facilities for MLOG's export cargo. Clause 2.6 provided for complete control and supervision of containers and cargo while in MIPL's custody and possession. Clause 2.10 provided for provision of adequate labour and supervision. Clause 2.14 provided for provision of security to prevent pilferage, theft and/or fires to the MLOG's cargo. Appendix II to the contract specifically stated that MLOG will pay to MIPL a fixed monthly rental amount of ₹ 10 lakhs in respect of warehouse No. 4 and ₹ 4.35 lakhs in respect of warehouse no. 2. These amounts were in addition to the carting charges, de-stuffing/re-stuffing charges, ground rent, lift on/lift off for empty containers, stuffing and movement of export cargo/OOG cargo to JNPT/NSCIT and Back to town charges. The collection of these charges separately in addition to cargo handling charges were never declared to the department. In the contract dated 14-2-2005, while all the activities/services rendered remained the same and a space of 3000 sq. mtrs. of storage space was prov………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Service Tax – Dated:- 18-9-2014 – Classification of service – incidental activity – scope of the contents of agreement – Storage and Warehousing services or………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Clarification with regard to provisions of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) under section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. – Companies Law – 36/2014 – Dated:- 17-9-2014 – General Circular No. 36/2014 F. No. 05/01/2014-CSR Government of India Ministry of Corporate Affairs 5th Floor, A Wing Shastri Bhawan, Dr. R.P. Road, New Delhi-110001 Dated: 17.09.2014 To All Regional Director, All Registrar of Companies, All Stakeholders Subject: Clarification with regard to provisions of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) under section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. Sir, In continuation of the General Circular No. 21 of 2014 dated 18.06.2014, the following clarifications are hereby issued: (i) Rule………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Sep 182014
 

Visit this link to view full text:…..

Abstract……..(Plain text)……

Central Excise – Dated:- 18-9-2014 – North East Exemption 32 and 33/1999-CE, dated 8.7.1999 – recovery proceedings – non issuance of SCN – It would not be appropriate to give an o………………

Visit this link to view full text:…..