Indirect taxes Cs Professional Expected/Important Questions for Dec 2013 examination I. Practical Problems 1. Central Excise Valuation Rules (preferably Rule 7 to 10A) 2. Central excise Captive Consumption or MRP Valuation 3. Central Excise Cenvat Credit Preferably on Rule 3 on Availment, or Rule 5 or 6 4. Customs Valuation duty calculation/Custom duty drawback. II. Central Excise Important questions 1. Dutiability of waste & scrap, Short shelf life goods 2. Dutiability of site related activities 3. Write a note on Deemed manufacture 4. Whether a Raw Material Supplier can be treated as manufacturer? Are there any exceptions to afore stated preposition? 5. Trade parlance theory of classification/classification of parts, packing material 6. Essential character classification 7. Valuation of samples Rule 4, and Specific duty valuation short notes 8. Definition under cenvat credit rules Input, Input service and Capital goods, exempted goods, exempted service 9. Cenvat credit Rule 4 & Rule 6 common inputs 10. Storage of inputs outside factory Rule 8 11. Cenvat credit on private challans 12. Procedure of removal of goods from 100% EOU to DTA, & Export to Bhutan 13. Consequences if excise duties are not paid by due dates Rule 8(3A) 14. Excise CERA Audit, Valuation and cenvat credit audit sec 14 A, AA 15. Payment of duty under protest 16. Relevant date u/s 11A, extended period of limitation, any part can be asked. 17. Doctrine of unjust enrichment 18. Appeals to CE Commissioner, admissibility of additional evidence 19. AAR/Settlement commission –Conditions, applicant, case, Powers 20. Sec 11 E- Excise recovery subject to priority & Corresponding sections in customs/service tax sec 88. III Customs 1. Definition of goods, definition under Import procedure, Smuggling, Relative,stores,baggage 2. Electronic payment of customs duty 3. Provisions regarding anti-dumping duty 4. Search, seizure in excise, customs and Service tax 5. Transit and transhipment 6. Coastal goods 7. Drawback u/74 &75 8. Assessment Sec 17 9. Import export through courier/Post 10. Procedures to be followed by master of vessels in case of import and export of goods 11. Customs valuation TV 4 conditions IV Case laws Expected Important case laws Central Excise 1. Addition and mixing of polymers and additives to base bitumen is not manufacture and not a new marketable commodity. CCE v. Osnar Chemical Pvt. Ltd. 2012 (276) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.) 2. Soft serves cannot be classified under ice-cream.Dept contention that 16% duty not valid, It is to be classified under edible preparations not elsewhere specified and it is charged to Nil duty Mc donalds (SC) 2012. 3. The process of removal of foreign materials from iron ore for concentration of such ore does not amount to manufacture No excise duty liability Commissioner of Central Excise Jamshedpur v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. 2012 (283) E.L.T. A112 (S.C.) 4. The manufacture and sale of specified goods, not physically bearing a brand name, from branded sale outlets would disentitle an assessee to avail benefit of small scale exemption. SSI exempltion not available for cookies sold loosely (CCEx vs. Australian Foods India (P) Ltd 2013 (287) ELT 385 (SC). 5. Iodine Cleansing Solution USP and Wokadine Surgical Scrub Classification should be made under Specific entry not under a residuary entry, CCE v. Wockhardt Life Sciences Ltd. 2012 (277) E.L.T. 299 (S.C.) 6. Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence can be considered a central excise officer for the purpose of issuing SCN Raghunath International Ltd. v. Union of India, 2012 (280) E.L.T. 321 (All). 7. Technical testing and analysis services availed for testing of clinical samples prior to commencement of commercial production were directly related to the manufacture of the final product and hence, were input services eligible for CENVAT credit. CCEx v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. 2013 (30) S.T.R. 3 (Guj.) 8. Revenue accepts judgment of the Commissioner (Appeals) on an issue for one period, it can be precluded to make an appeal on the same issue for another period Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-III v. Tikitar Industries, 2012 (277) E.L.T. 149 (S.C.) 9. Assessee can claim the benefit of SSI exemption on the brand name of another firm if its proprietor is also a partner in such other firm Commissioner v. Elex Knitting Machinery Co. 2012 (283) E.LT. A18 (S.C.) 10. The service tax liability created under law can’t be shifted by a clause entered in the contract? Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran 2012 (26) S.T.R. 289 (S.C.) 11. Can the Settlement Commission decline to grant immunity from prosecution after confirming the demand and imposing the penalty . in the present case, without placing the burden on the department to prove their case, the Settlement Commission confirmed the demand on the assessee. Settlement Commission should not have refused the benefit of immunity from prosecution. Hence, that part of refusal to grant immunity for prosecution is aloneMaruthi Tex Print & Pr ocessors P. Ltd. v. C. & C. Ex. Sett.Comm., Chennai 2012(281) E.L.T. 509 (Mad.) 12. Exempted goods on which duty has been paid by mistake by the assessee and refund thereof has also not been claimed would be excluded while computing turnover for preceding year for claiming SSI exemption?Bonanzo Engg. & Chemical P. Ltd. v. CCEx. 2012 (277) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) 13. Metal scrap or waste generated during the repair of his worn out machineries/parts of cement manufacturing plant by a cement manufacturer amounts to manufacture?Grasim Industries Ltd. v. UOI 2011 (273) E.L.T. 10 (S.C.) 14. Physician samples excisable goods in view of the fact that they are statutorily prohibited from being sold Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE & C., Daman 2011 (263) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) 15. Product with short shelf-life satisfies the test of marketability. They are Goods and marketable. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. v. CCEx., Mumbai 2010 (260) E.L.T. 338 (S.C.) 16. CENVAT credit on the duty paid on capital goods which were later destroyed by fire. The Insurance Company reimbursed the amount inclusive of excise duty. Is the CENVAT credit availed by the assessee not required to reverse CCE v. Tata Advanced Materials Ltd. 2011 (271) E.L.T. 62 (Kar.) 17. In case of combo-pack of bought out tooth brush sold along with tooth paste manufactured by assessee; is tooth brush eligible as input under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004?CCus. v. Prime Health Care Products 2011 (272) E.L.T. 54 (Guj.) 18. Penalty can’t be imposed on the directors of the company for the wrong CENVAT credit availed by the company. Rule 15 provides penality can be levied on a person for wrong availment. Ashok Kumar H. Fulwadhya v. UOI 2010 (251) E.L.T. 336 (Bom.) 19. Whether the clearances of two firms having common brand name, goods being manufactured in the same factory premises, having common management and accounts etc. can be clubbed for the purposes of SSI exemption CCE v. Deora Engineering Works 2010 (255) ELT 184 (P & H) 20. In case of a Settlement Commissions order, Assessee not permitted to accept what is favourable to them and reject what is not Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. V. UOI 2010 (251) ELT 3 (SC). Customs 1. Tribunal can condone the delay in filing application consequent to review by the Committee of Chief Commissioners if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within the prescribed period as per sec 129A, 129AD Thakker Shipping P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (General) 2012 (285) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) 2. Extended period of limitation for demand of customs duty can’t be invoked in a case where the assessee had sought a clarification about exemption from a wrong authority. The Supreme Court held that mere non-payment of duties could not be equated with collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts as then there would be no form of non-payment which would amount to ordinary default. The Apex Court opined that something more must be shown to construe the acts of the assessee as fit for the applicability of the proviso. Uniworth Textiles Ltd. vs. CCEx. 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC) 3. Non-filing of additional documents despite several opportunities to the assessee to produce the same, could not be a sufficient ground for passing a non- speaking order, since the assesse refund claim on the similar issue was allowed without additional documents. DBOI Global Service Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI 2013 (29) S.T.R. 117 (Bom.) 4. Subsequent increase in the market price of the imported goods due to inflation would not lead to increase in customs duty as the contract price between the parties has not increased accordingly. The commodity involved had volatile fluctuations in its price in the international market, but having delayed the shipment; the supplier did not increase the price of the commodity even after the increase in its price in the international market. There was no allegation of the supplier and importer being in collusion. Thus, the appeal was allowed in the favour of the respondent- assessee. Commissioner of Cus., Vishakhapatnam v. Aggarwal Industries Ltd. 2011 E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) 5. The assessee be cannot be denied the refund claim only on the basis of contention that he had produced the attested copy of TR-6 challan* and not the original of the TR-6 challan* Narayan Nambiar Meloths v. CCus. 2010 (251) E.L.T. 57 (Ker.)
Posted on: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 17:29:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015