Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT Audit :: due date for vat payment :: VAT RATES :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: empanelment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: cpt :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes
 
 
News Headlines »
 GST Council fails to break deadlock over indirect tax regime, next meet on Dec 11 and 12 to hammer out differences
 Invoking Writ Jurisdiction For Income Tax Matters
 How to file income-tax returns online
 How Income Tax Returns Are Scrutinised
 All About New Income Disclosure Scheme to make Demonetisation successful
 Your deposit may draw income tax notice
 Accepting payment under IDS 2016
 New disclosure scheme could see 50% tax and 4-year limit on cash use for unaccounted deposits
 Pay 50% tax on unaccounted deposits, or 85% if caught, says Modi government
 Deadline to pay property tax in old currency extended
 Cabinet clears amendments to Income Tax Act

Discourage SC appeals ignoring excise orders
January, 22nd 2007

The judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Indore, vs Virdi Brothers 2007 (207)ELT 321(SC), illustrates how field officials are ignoring orders issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 37-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 
 
When an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court in this case, not only was the binding order under 37-B in existence, but it was even pointed out in the order of the Tribunal 2002 (145) ELT 696 (Tri. Del.) that there was already a binding Circular No. 58/1/2002-Cx. dated 15.1.2002 under Section 37-B. 
 
In the tribunals order, a stricture had also been passed against the commissioner for ignoring a similar order of the tribunal on the issue. So, while filing an appeal to the Supreme Court against the tribunals order, the commissioner ignored the binding order of the board issued under Section 37B. 
 
The issue on which the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court was one relating to erection of plant and machinery at site. On this issue, there is a plethora of Supreme Court judgements over a period of time, which have been also enumerated in the circular of the board. 
 
The circular says that in view of several judgements, the matter had been examined in consultation with the solicitor general. 
 
The final clarification, inter alia, is that when goods are manufactured at site and become immovable property, they are not excisable. If items assembled or erected at site and attached by foundation to earth cannot be dismantled without substantial damage to their components and thus cannot be reassembled, the items would not be considered as moveable and, therefore, not be excisable goods. 
 
Specific examples have also been given of refrigeration/air-conditioning plants. It has been said that these are basically systems comprising compressors, ducting, piping, insulators and sometimes cooling lowers, etc. 
 
They are in the nature of systems and are not machines as a whole. They come into existence only by assembly and connection of various components and parts. 
 
Though each component is dutiable, the refrigeration/air-conditioning system as a whole cannot be considered to be excisable goods. The appeal before the Supreme Court related to precisely the same goods as mentioned in the circular. 
 
Despite such a definite order given by the board in a circular under Section 37B, which makes it binding on all subordinate offices under the board, the commissioner ignored it and filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the tribunals order. 
 
On this issue, the Supreme Court has given another judgement in the case of Damodar Ropeways reported in 2003 (151) ELT 3 SC. The court decided that the ropeway being erected at site was immovable property and, therefore, not chargeable to central excise duty. 
 
The system of filing an appeal before the Supreme Court needs a review. The present situation is that the board itself gives permission to file an appeal against an order of the tribunal. 
 
Thereafter, it is also necessary to take the permission of the litigation section of the law ministry. It seems that this system of screening cases to prevent undue litigation is more porous than course sand. 
 
This raises a general issue about the multiplicity of senior-level officials who are supposed to take a decision. When there is too much of a hierarchical structure in position, the responsibility, rather than being exercised assiduously, becomes more diluted. Each one thinks that the other has examined it already.

Sukumar Mukhopadhyay

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Achievements

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions