Circular No. 130/12/2010 ST
F. No. 137/68/2010 CX. 4
Government
of India
Ministry of
Finance
Department
of Revenue
(Central
Board of Excise & Customs)
****
New Delhi, the 20th
September 2010
To
The Chief
Commissioners of Central Excise and Service Tax (ALL),
The Director General
of Service Tax
The Director General
of Audit
The Director General
of Central Excise Intelligence,
The Commissioners of
Service Tax (ALL)
Madam/Sir,
Subject:
Powers of adjudication of Central Excise Officers in Service Tax cases
instructions regarding
*********
Attention is invited to Boards Circular No. 80/1/2005 ST dated
10.05.2005 and No. 97/8/2007 dated 23.08.2007 (para12.2) which specifies
uniform monetary limits for adjudication of cases under section 73 and section
83 A of the Finance Act, 1994. At
present adjudication powers in Service Tax cases have been delegated upto the level of Assistant Commissioners and
Superintendents were not vested with any authority to adjudicate cases. The
Board has decided to confer the power of adjudication on Superintendents for
cases involving service tax upto Rs. 1 lakh in a show cause notice, except in respect of issues relating
to taxability of services, valuation of services and cases involving extended
period. Accordingly the monetary limits
for adjudication of cases has been revised vide Notification No. 48/2010
Service Tax dated 8th September 2010.
2. The revised monetary
limits are as follows:
Table I
|
Sr. No. |
Central Excise
Officer |
Amount of service
tax or CENVAT credit specified in a notice for the purpose of adjudication
under Section 83A |
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
|
(1) |
Superintendent of
Central Excise |
Not exceeding Rs.
one lakh (excluding
the cases relating
to taxability of services or valuation of services and cases involving
extended period of limitation.) |
|
(2) |
Assistant
Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise |
Not exceeding Rs.
five lakhs (except cases where Superintendents are
empowered to adjudicate.) |
|
(3) |
Joint Commissioner
of Central Excise |
Above Rs. five lakhs but not exceeding Rs. fifty lakhs |
|
(4) |
Additional
Commissioner of Central Excise |
Above Rs. twenty lakhs but not exceeding Rs. fifty lakhs |
|
(5) |
Commissioner of
Central Excise |
Without limit. |
The revised monetary limits for the purpose of adjudication under section
73 are as specified as below,-
Table
II
|
Sr. No. |
Central Excise Officer |
Amount of Service Tax or
CENVAT credit specified in a notice for the purpose of adjudication. |
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
|
(1) |
Superintendent of Central Excise |
Not exceeding Rs. one lakh
(excluding the cases relating to
taxability of services or valuation of services and cases involving extended
period of limitation.) |
|
(2) |
Assistant
Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise |
Not exceeding Rs.
five lakhs (except cases where Superintendents are
empowered to adjudicate.) |
|
(3) |
Joint Commissioner
of Central Excise |
Above Rs. five lakhs but not exceeding Rs. fifty lakhs |
|
(4) |
Additional
Commissioner of Central Excise |
Above Rs. twenty lakhs but not exceeding Rs. fifty lakhs |
|
(5) |
Commissioner of
Central Excise |
Without limit. |
3. In respect of the above
powers of adjudication conferred on the Superintendents, it is clarified as
under,-
(i) The Superintendents would be competent to decide cases that involve
Service Tax and / or CENVAT credit upto Rs. one lakh in individual show cause notices.
(ii) They would not be competent to decide cases that involve taxability of
services, valuation of services, eligibility of exemption and cases involving
suppression of facts, fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement
etc.
(iii) They would be competent to decide cases involving wrong availment of CENVAT credit upto a
monetary limit of Rs. one lakh.
(iv) The jurisdictional Commissioners of Central Excise may redistribute the
pending cases in the Commissionerate based on above
factors. It is further clarified that notwithstanding this revision, in all
cases, where the personal hearing has already been completed, orders will be
passed by the officer before whom the hearing has been held. Such orders should
normally be issued within a month of the date of completion of the personal
hearing.
(v) It may also be noted that the age-wise pendency of cases as shown in the
Monthly Technical Report should be reported based on the date of issuance of
show cause notice and not on the basis of transfer of cases to the new
Adjudicating Authority. The jurisdictional Commissioners should ensure that the
work of re-allocation of the pending cases, issuance of corrigendum to the Show
Cause Notices, transfer of relevant files and records etc, should be completed
in a time-bound manner at the most within a month. A compliance report in this
regard should be sent to the Chief Commissioner by the Commissioner, who in
turn, should submit the details to the DGST by 30th September 2010.
DGST will consolidate and submit a report to the Board by 15.10.2010 to the
effect that all the work regarding re-allocation of cases has been completed.
4. The
contents of this circular may be suitably brought to the notice of the field
formations and the Trade.
5. Hindi
version will follow.
(Himanshu
Gupta)
Commissioner (Service Tax)
CBEC, New Delhi