Introduction of Digital Life Certificates for Pensioners
RBI/2014-15/343
DGBA.GAD.H- 2529/45.01.001/2014-15
DGBA.GAD.H- 2529/45.01.001/2014-15
December 9, 2014
The Chairman/Chief Executive Officer
All agency banks
All agency banks
Dear Sir
Introduction of Digital Life Certificates for Pensioners
As per the present scheme for payment of government pension, pensioners are required to furnish a life certificate in November every year to the bank concerned for continued receipt of pension without interruption. Even though this requirement has been liberalised to enable pensioners to submit their life certificate at any branch of the pension disbursing bank, several pensioners find it difficult to submit the certificates in time for various reasons.
2. In order to alleviate the hardship caused to pensioners, the Government of India has since launched "Jeevan Pramaan", a digital life certificate based on Aadhaar Biometric Authentication, aimed at further simplifying the process of submission of life certificate and facilitating accuracy and timeliness in disbursal of pensions. In order to facilitate implementation of Jeevan Pramaan, a web portal (jeevanpramaan.gov.in) was launched by the Hon'ble Prime Minister on November 10, 2014. Copy of a brochure on Jeevan Pramaan brought out by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology of the Government of India, explaining the details of the scheme and its benefits, is enclosed for your information.
3. To facilitate introduction of Jeevan Pramaan, the Central Pension Accounting Office, Ministry of Finance, Government of India (CPAO) has amended the Scheme of Payment of Pensions to Central Government Civil Pensioners. A copy of the relative Office Memorandum dated November 14, 2014, issued by the CPAO, enclosing Correction Slip no. 22 dated November 10, 2014, and the process for getting digital life certificates by the pensioners, is attached. Copies of the memorandum has already been sent by CPAO to all banks and to the governments of all States and Union Territories. Similar amendments to their respective pension regulations have also been made by different Central Government Ministries (e.g., Ministry of Railways and Department of Posts). The Indian Banks Association has also issued a circular dated November 22, 2014, in this regard to their member banks.
4. Once fully implemented, agency bank branches will be able to obtain information about the digital life certificate of their pensioner customers by logging on to the website of Jeevan Pramaan and searching for the certificate or by downloading through their Core Banking Systems. Pensioners will also be able to forward to their bank branches the relative link to their digital life certificate by email/sms.
5. All agency banks disbursing government pension may take necessary action to implement and benefit from the scheme and issue necessary instructions to all their branches concerned and dealing staff. Banks may, in addition, work towards creating awareness about this facility among their pensioner customers through their branches, websites and other means. Banks may also suitably amend the FAQs on pension payments posted on their websites, and provide a link to the website of Jeevan Pramaan.
Yours faithfully
(G. Sreekumar)
Chief General Manager
Chief General Manager
Preference of e-Journal over Hard Copy of Journal – ICAI aks Members opinion
Preference of e-Journal over Hard Copy of Journal
Kind Attention: All Members of ICAI
The Office of Editorial Board, of late, had received requests from some of the ICAI members asking us to stop sending free (mandatory) hard copy of the Journal and begin sending the soft copy instead. The Editorial Board appreciates their environment-friendly concerns. Sometimes, reasons could be entirely different, e.g. more members are at the same address.
Before we act on such requests to stop sending the hard copy of Journal, we would like to know opinion from other members too, in this regard, i.e. if you would prefer soft copy of the Journal to the hard copy version.
We request you to let us know about your opinion on this matter and send us an email to eboard@icai.in.
Editorial Board (Source- ICAI)
Tax already paid by Assessee out of disputed amount at Adjudication level would be treated as mandatory pre-deposit for filing appeal
Tax already paid by the Assessee out of the disputed amount at Adjudication level would be treated as mandatory pre-deposit for filing an appeal – No need for mandatory pre-deposit again
Zim Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2014-TIOL-2436-CESTAT-MUM]
In the instant case, Zim Laboratories Ltd.(the Appellant) filed an appeal before the Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai against the Order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (the Impugned Order). Accordingly, the Appellant was required to make a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the tax/ penalty imposed on them as per the newly substituted Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Excise Act) made applicable to the Finance Act, 1994 (the Finance Act) vide Section 83 thereof.
However, the Appellant did not make payment of the mandatory pre-deposit and consequently, the Registry raised an objection that the Appellant has not complied with the provisions of Section 35F of the Excise Act made applicable to the Finance Act vide Section 83 thereof, and the matter was listed before the Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai on the question of maintainability of appeal in the absence of mandatory pre-deposit.
The Appellant submitted that the total demand upon them works out to Rs. 26,36,890/- and they have paid a sum of Rs. 3.67 lakhs which has been appropriated by the Adjudicating Authority in the Impugned Order. Accordingly, the same may be treated as an amount equal to the pre-deposit to be made by the Appellant as per Section 35F of the Excise Act made applicable to the Finance Act vide Section 83 thereof.
The Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai considered the submissions made by the Appellant and held that as the Appellant has already paid a sum of Rs. 3.67 lakhs and same has been appropriated in the Impugned Order, therefore they are not required to make any further pre-deposit. Accordingly, the appeal was held to be maintainable and the Registry was directed to list the appeal for final hearing in due course.
Deemed exports and exports are not distinguishable for the purpose of Central Excise Law
Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida Vs. JBM Auto Components Ltd. [(2014) 51 taxmann.com 36 (New Delhi – CESTAT)]
In the instant case, the Department preferred an appeal to the Hon'ble CESTAT, Delhi, against the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) wherein it was held that deemed exports and exports are not different.
The Department sought to distinguish exports and deemed exports before Hon'ble CESTAT, Delhi.
The Hon'ble CESTAT, Delhi held that there is no law to advance such proposition and accordingly,the two concepts i.e. exports and deemed exports are not different. Thus, the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed.
Our Comments:
In the case of E.I. Dupont India (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India [(2014) 41 taxmann.com 479/43 GST 461 (Guj.)] the Hon'ble Gujarat high Court held that refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 ("the Credit Rules") would be allowed in respect of credit attributable to turnover of deemed export.
Similarly, In the case of Inox Air Products Ltd. Vs. CCE [(2007) taxmann.com 949 (Ahd. – CESTAT)] the Hon'ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad held that rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 would be applicable to deemed exports.
Where Assessee has made pre-deposit as directed by Commissioner (A), Dept cannot make coercive recovery during pendency of Stay Application
Orissa Stevedores Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Cuttack [(2014) 51 taxmann.com 492 (Orissa)]
In the instant case, Orissa Stevedores Ltd. (the Petitioner) filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa with a prayer to quash the notice dated August 20, 2014 issued by the Revenue for recovery of Rs. 11,44,54,732/- levied towards interest from the Petitioner for the period from 2010-11 to 2013-14. The further prayer of the Petitioner was for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the Revenue for not taking any coercive action against the Petitioner during pendency of Stay Applications.
The Petitioner argued that, against interest, it had filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) along with Stay Applications and had made pre-deposit as directed by him. It was further submitted that since no officer has been posted as the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeals along with the Stay Application filed by the Petitioner could not be disposed of and pending disposal of Stay Application, the Revenue are not justified to take any coercive action against the Petitioner.
On the other hand, the Revenue argued that interest has been demanded for Service tax admitted by the Petitioner in his own return and since interest is mandatory, no appeal lies against it and further, there is no question of limitation for levy of interest as ST-3 returns were assessed and Service tax liability has already been paid.
The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa after observing that the Petitioner themselves has filed a sheet during the course of hearing showing computation of interest as per which they admit payment of interest of Rs. 2.17 crore still pending on them, directed that the Petitioner must pay Rs. 2.17 crore admitted by them. However, the Hon'ble High Court directed the Revenue not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner as regards balance dues till disposal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals).
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment