Norms for Execution of Bank Guarantee for Advance License/EPCG Schemes
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS
DRAWBACK DIVISION
NEW DELHI
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS
DRAWBACK DIVISION
NEW DELHI
CIRCULAR NO. 15/2014-Customs.,
Dated: December 18, 2014
Subject: Norms for Execution of Bank Guarantee in respect of Advance License/Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Schemes – reg.
Reference of field formations is drawn to Circular No. 58/2004-Cus dated 21.10.2004 on the above subject as amended by Circular Nos.17/2009-Cus, 32/2009-Cus, 6/2011-Cus and 8/2013-Cus.
2. Presently, the para 3.2 of the Circular No. 58/2004-Customs prescribes that the bank guarantee (BG) exemption specified in para 3.1 of the Circular shall be admissible subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions (amongst others) for the admissibility of the Nil or 15% or 25% BG is in para 3.2(c) of the Circular. It prescribes that the license holder should not have been penalized during the previous three financial years in certain types of cases booked against him under statutes specified therein. If this condition is not satisfied, i.e. the license holder has been penalized, the exemption (Nil or 15% or 25%) from BG becomes inadmissible and 100% BG becomes applicable to the relevant category of importer specified in para 3.1 of the Circular.
3. It has been brought to notice of the Board that in the above situation the exemption from BG becomes inapplicable (i.e. trade facilitation gets affected) even if there is absence of risk to revenue.
4. In order to redress the above position, the Board has decided to add sub-para (d) below sub-para (c) in para 3.2 of Circular No. 58/2004-Customs (as amended) as follows -
"(d) Where the condition (c) above is not fulfilled, the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs is satisfied, for reasons recorded in the file, that 100% BG is not justified on account of absence of risk to revenue."
5. These instructions may be brought to the notice of the trade/exporters by issuing suitable Trade/ Public Notice. Officers may be suitably guided through Standing Orders. Difficulties faced, if any, in implementation may be brought to the notice of the Board at an early date.
F.No.605/144/2013-DBK
(Sanjay Kumar)
Under Secretary (DBK)
Under Secretary (DBK)
Re-warehousing of goods imported and/or procured indigenously by EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP units-reg.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS
DRAWBACK DIVISION
NEW DELHI
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS
DRAWBACK DIVISION
NEW DELHI
CIRCULAR NO. 16/2014-Customs
Dated: December 18, 2014
Subject: Re-warehousing of goods imported and/or procured indigenously by EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP units-reg.
Attention is drawn to the self-bonding/warehousing procedure on the above subject specified in Circular No. 19/2007-Cus dated 03.05.2007. It has been brought to the notice of the Board that the units which are under the said procedure are facing difficulty in obtaining deemed export benefits as the ARE-3 is not certified by the Central Excise authorities.
2. The matter was examined in consultation with the DGFT and DG (EP). To resolve the issue and facilitate trade, it has been decided by the Board to provide that the Superintendent – in- charge of the unit shall make two legible photocopies of the original copy of ARE-3 (that bears his counter signature) and attest each of them as true copies with his dated signature. One attested copy shall be kept in the Range office for records and the other one shall be handed over (against dated acknowledgement) to the unit for use while applying deemed export benefits.
3. Accordingly, the last sentence in para 2(b) of Circular No. 19/2007-Cus shall be taken as modified to the above extent.
4. This instruction may be brought to the notice of the trade/exporters by issuing suitable public notice. The officers may be suitably guided through a Standing Order. Difficulties faced, if any, in implementation may be brought to the notice of the Board.
F.No. 605/75/2014-DBK
(Sanjay Kumar)
Under Secretary (Drawback)
Under Secretary (Drawback)
Authentication of supply invoice/ ARE-3 by the Central Excise Authorities for Claiming Deemed export benefits – reg.
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS
NEW DELHI
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS
NEW DELHI
CIRCULAR NO. 17/2014-Customs,
Dated: December 18, 2014
Subject: Authentication of supply invoice/ ARE-3 by the Central Excise Authorities for Claiming Deemed export benefits – reg.
Attention is drawn to Circular No. 15/2008-Cus dated 26.09.2008 in which guidelines on the above subject have been prescribed for recipient units registered with Central Excise or not so registered. In respect of units registered with Central Excise, the Superintendent of Central Excise in-charge of the unit has to make an endorsement on documents within 21 days from the date of supply or receipt of intimation, whichever is later.
2. It is reported to the Board that compliance with the above provision is difficult to assess when the said endorsement is not dated by the Superintendent. Moreover, difficulty was reported in obtaining document certified by Central Excise Authority w.r.t. recipient units registered with Central Excise but operating under the self- bonding/warehousing procedure prescribed in Circular No. 19/2007-Cus dated 03.05.2007.
3. The matter was examined in consultation with the DGFT. It has been decided by the Board to amend the guidelines by adding the following lines at the end of para 2(a) in Circular No. 15/2008-Cus "Such endorsement shall bear the dated signature of the Superintendent of Central Excise. Further, where the recipient unit is operating under the procedure prescribed vide Circular no. 19/2007-Cus dated 03.05.2007 , the Superintendent of Central Excise shall, as is specified in that Circular, provide an attested true photocopy of the original ARE-3."
4. This instruction may be brought to the notice of the trade/exporters by issuing suitable public notice. The officers may be suitably guided through a Standing Order. Difficulties faced, if any, in implementation may be brought to the notice of the Board.
F.No.605/75/2014-DBK
(Sanjay Kumar)
Under Secretary (DBK)
Under Secretary (DBK)
CIT vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (Bombay High Court), Appeal no. 803 of 2012, decided on 12-09-2014 & 01-10-2014
Bombay High Court was annoyed for filing appeal in a matter covered by a binding precedent of the Apex Court. The Court sought an explanation from the counsel for the Income Tax Department why appeal u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act has been filed by him when there was an authoritative pronouncement on the issue by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Tulsyan NEC Ltd. 300 ITR 226 (SC). On his pretext that the decision to file an appeal is taken by the Jurisdictional Commissioner and he has merely abided by his directions, the Court irked by his explanation held thus:
These state of affairs can hardly be termed as satisfactory. It is unfortunate that the Revenue is unable to make any distinction with regard to the legal position noted in the judgment of the Supreme Court of India and it is bound by the said judgment of the highest court in the country. The Revenue seems to be unaware of Article 141 of the Constitution of India and mandate thereof. Once there is nothing to the contrary, then, the authoritative pronouncement should bind all. The Tribunal then cannot be approached and equally this Court to complain about an adverse order. We are shocked that when such is the concession recorded that the Appeals of this nature are brought before this Court and it's precious judicial time is wasted. Let the concerned Commissioner and who advised that such Appeal should be filed before this Court, remain present before us on the next date of hearing. After giving him an opportunity we would then record our dissatisfaction and proceed to impose costs. It is only to comply with the principles of natural justice and equally fairness and equity that we adopt this course.
… It is very unfortunate that we had to secure the presence of the highest officers in the department of Income Tax, for seeking an explanation on the points which we have raised in our order dated 12.09.2014.
.. The only intent to secure personal appearance of higher officials is to impress on the Revenue that larger public interest mandates and requires it not to waste precious time of the highest Court in the State by engaging it in frivolous Appeals and applications. It may be that, at the departmental level, the officers are not satisfied with adverse orders and desire to contest the issue or raise it before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, when the Tribunal follows and applies the ratio of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, then, we would expect the officers to gracefully accept an adverse verdict. Where no distinguishing feature can be pointed out, then, the law of the land must be allowed to prevail. The mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution of India is known to all. The further mandate of the Constitution as enshrined in Article 261(1) is giving of full faith and credit to public acts, records and judicial proceedings of the union and of every State. Therefore, the law declared by the Supreme Court binds all and cannot be brushed aside. The repeated attempts to raise the same issues and questions in relation to same Assessee and year after year results in loss of precious judicial time and public revenue. We do not expect hereafter such an irresponsible conduct from the higher officers. Ordinarily, we would have in the absence of any explanation forthcoming, passed severe structures against the department and the officers in particular but we refrain from doing so since the concerned officials present in Court sincerely apologized for the lapse and urged that the Appeal may be disposed against the Revenue and in terms of our earlier orders so also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, both of which are binding on us. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed.
 | |||||||
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment