Clarifications on Excise imposed on Jewellery
Listen to this Article
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 have collectively decided to go for a complete closure of bullion markets in major as well as small towns and staged 'dharnas'.
Jewellers across the country have also been protesting against mandatory quoting of PAN by customers for transaction of Rs 2 lakh and above.
Government came up with following clarification in this regard;
In this year’s Budget, a nominal excise duty of
1% [without input tax credit] or
12.5% [with input tax credit]
has been imposed on articles of Jewellery. Even for this nominal 1% excise duty, manufacturers are allowed to take credit of input services, which can be utilised for payment of duty on Jewellery.
Some doubts have been expressed by the trade and industry regarding this levy. In that context, salient features of this levy are explained as under:
- Easy compliance with provision for on line application for registration, payment of excise duty and filing of returns, with zero interface with the departmental officers.
- The central excise officers have been directed not to visit the premises of Jewellery manufacturers.
- Articles of silver jewellery [other than those studded with diamonds, ruby, emerald or sapphire] are exempt from this duty.
- An artisan or goldsmith who only manufactures jewellery on job-work basis is not required to register with the Central Excise, pay duty and file returns, as all these obligations will be on the principal manufacturers [Rule 12AA of the Central Excise Rules, 2002].
- There is a substantially high Small Scale Industries excise duty exemption limit of Rs. 6 crore in a year [as against normal SSI exemption limit of Rs. 1.5 crore] along with a higher eligibility limit of Rs. 12 crore [as against normal SSI eligibility limit of Rs. 4 crore].
- Thus, only if the turnover of a jeweler during preceding financial year was more than Rs. 12 crore, he will be liable to pay the excise duty. Jewelers having turnover below Rs. 12 crore during preceding financial year will be eligible for exemption unto Rs. 6 crore during next financial year. Such small jewelers will be eligible for exemptions upto Rs. 50 lakh for the month of March, 2016.
- For determination of eligibility for the SSI exemption for the month of March, 2016 or financial year 2016-17, a certificate from a Chartered Accountant, based on the books of accounts for 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively, would suffice.
- Further, facility of Optional Centralized Registration has also been provided. Thus, there is no need for a Jewellery manufacturer to take separate registrations for all his premises.
- Field formations have been directed to grant hassle free registrations, within two working days of submission of the registration application. Further, there will be no post registration physical verification of the premises [online registration – https://www.aces.gov.in/].
- Jeweler’s private records or records for State VAT or records for Bureau of Indian Standards (in the case of hallmarked jewellery) will be accepted for all Central Excise purposes. Also, there is no requirement to file a stock declaration to the jurisdictional central excise authorities.
- Excise duty is to be paid on monthly basis and not on each clearance, with first installment of duty payment for the month of March, 2016 to be paid by 31st March for March, 2016.
- A simplified quarterly return has also been prescribed, for duty paying jewelers [ER-8].
- Moreover, simplified export procedure is available for exempted units [Part III of chapter 7 of CBEC’s Central Excise Manual].
Category : Excise | Comments : 0 | Hits : 1147
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...
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...
Interest expenditure, depreciation and profit margin not be taken into consideration for arriving at the cost of production C.C.E., Vadodara-I Vs. Nirma Ltd. & Ors. [2015 (11) TMI 605 - SUPREME COURT] Nirma Ltd. & Ors. (“the Respondent”) was engaged in the manufacture of Linear Alkyl Benzene (“LAB”) which was cleared by the Respondent to its sister units located in different places and was also used captively in the same factory where the said LAB is manufac...


Comments