Aligning Service Tax provisions with Central Excise
Listen to this Article
The Budget, 2012 has brought many changes in the Service Tax provisions in an attempt to align the same with provisions of Central Excise Rules. This is clearly being done to pave the way for later when GST will be introduced. Lets see how far this is successful.
Changes in filing of Returns of Service tax and Central Excise:
In case of services, the Service Tax return is mandated to be filed half yearly i.e. in April and October of every financial year although payment of service tax is done by the service provider on monthly or quarterly basis.
On the other hand, under Central Excise Rules, 2002 an assessee registered with the department files return on monthly basis in case of a Non-SSI unit and on quarterly basis in case of an SSI unit. Even the format of returns is different in service tax and in excise.
Thus, payment of service tax and filing of return are different procedures and are not linked to each other.
Now, in the Budget, 2011 this is being changed. A new simplified one page common return with Central Excise is being introduced. It will be called as Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
It is provided that an assessee whose service tax liability was Rs. 25 lakhs or more in the previous year and in case of a newly registered service provider other than individual or firms, will have to file return “Monthly”.
And in other cases i.e. Individuals and partnership firm or proprietary firms having paid service tax of less than Rs. 25 lakhs in previous year, will have to file return ‘Quarterly’.
Thus, the system of filing of returns under service tax is brought at par with the filing of returns in central excise. Now, payment of service tax will coincide with filing of service tax returns.
The filing of monthly returns by Service tax assesses will be very difficult. Small assessee will find it very difficult to cope up with this condition. It will consume the time and energy of assessee as well as that of the department.
And introduction of single return for both service tax and excise duty is one more step introduced by Government in their move towards implementing GST. However, there was hoped that there will be annual return in GST but the monthly return filing will be very tedious.
Format of new Excise & Service Tax Registration Form:
Government has also introduced a common simplified Registration format for both Central Excise and Service tax. But still there is some information which seems to be irrelevant for both the assessees. In the said Registration form, the details of Investment in land, plant and machinery has been asked to be furnished. The other information sought is about the details of bank account of the assessees. These set of information is irrelevant and have no bearing for grant of registration. Therefore, why these details have been incorporated in Registration format is not clear. This was asked in the earlier registration application. It seems that the cut and paste approach has been followed by the department and it is not seen whether these details are relevant or not?
Demand provisions:
Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 is proposed to be amended to increase the time limit for issuing of show cause notice from one year to 18 months. The reason given for this is to take care of the shorter period available due to the periodicity of the new return EST-1 which is monthly/quarterly.
This step does not appear to be a move towards aligning the service tax provisions with that of Central Excise Provisions. If that was so then, the period for issuing demand notice should have remained 1 year only instead of being increased. When the time limit of issue of show cause notice is one year then why it is increased to one and half year in service tax.
On the other side, the time for filing of appeal has been reduced from three months to two months to align the same with the Central Excise provisions. But the increasing of time limit of SCN is also not at par with this step.
Issue of Statement for Demand on same grounds for subsequent periods:
Another change made is that by virtue of sub-section (1A) in Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 the Central Excise officer has been empowered to give only a statement in case the grounds are same as for the previous period, and that statement will be deemed as service of notice on such person.
Moreover, no time limit has been prescribed within which this statement is to be filed. Therefore, they can give a statement at any time or after a considerable delay. This provision gives a lot of power to the Department which may remain unchecked and may be misused.
Also, no such provision exists in the counter provisions of the Central Excise Provisions. This is not in any way amounts to aligning the provisions of Service with that of Central Excise. And in the road towards GST, this will prove contrary to achieving the said goal.
It seems that the Government does not want to align the provisions of service tax with Central Excise but wants to do the things against the assessee. But when it wants to give more powers to the department officer then it ignores this objective. Nobody can question the Board.
Category : Excise | Comments : 0 | Hits : 265
The scheme of levy and collection of Central Excise duty on articles of Jewellery is as under: (a) The levy and collection of Central Excise Duty is on the manufacture of Jewellery (excluding silver Jewellery, not studded with diamonds, ruby, emerald or sapphire). (b) It is applicable to both branded as well as unbranded Jewellery. (c) The rate of duty on the Jewellery are as follows: (i) 1% on transaction value [without Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods...
Clarifications on Excise imposed on Jewellery The strike by bullion traders and jewellers continued for the 8th day to protest the Budget proposal to impose one per cent excise duty(without input tax credit) on Jewellery, despite the Centre's assurance that it would look into the issue. Most Jewellery houses are closed since the finance minister Arun Jaitley in his Budget proposal on February 29 levied 1% excise duty on Jewellery. Striking associations in different part of the country h...
Dear Professional Colleague, No bar on admissibility of Cenvat credit either as Inputs or Capital goods at any stage of proceedings We are sharing with you an important judgment of the Hon’ble CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [(2016) 66 taxmann.com 76 (Kolkata - CESTAT)] on following issues: Issue: Whether rails and other track materials, namely, sleepers, paints and crossings etc. used for movement of raw materials, finish...
Cenvat credit admissible on services of sales commission agent Background: Even though the definition of ‘input services’ given under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (“the Credit Rules”) covers the services of sales promotion in its inclusive part, eligibility to avail Cenvat credit on the services rendered by a commission agent has been disputed recently because of divergent judgments and views of the Department. In this regard, the Hon’ble Punjab &...
Cenvat credit on input services availed prior to initiation of manufacturing activity is admissible Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2015 (63) taxmann.com 151 (New Delhi - CESTAT)] Facts: The Department denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that Shree Cement Ltd. (“the Appellant”) is not entitled to take Cenvat credit on Service tax on cargo handling service which has been distributed to the...


Comments