Jurisprudentiol– Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise

Utilization of CENVAT Credit for payment of duty during forfeiture period - Commissioner(A) has shown considerable leniency in reducing penalty - Tribunal orders pre-deposit

UNDER Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, an assessee is required to pay Central Excise duty on the clearance effected in a particular month by 5th day of the succeeding month. Duty can, however, be paid along with interest within a further period of 30 days from due date, but in case the duty is paid after the expiry of 30 days, then under the provisions of Rule 8(3A) [as it existed prior to 1.6.2006], the facility of paying duty in monthly instalments can be forfeited and duty is required to be paid on each consignment through PLA and no payment can be made through Cenvat credit account.

Income Tax

Relief under two provisions of law – Section 80 HHE or 10B - if in an earlier year assessee waived his right then he cannot be stopped to claim benefit in subsequent year; Withdrawal of claim is mandatory, it can be done before assessment is complete: ITAT

LEGALITY has to be seen in the year in which the claim is preferred and if in an earlier year the assessee waived his right then he cannot be stopped to claim the benefit in the subsequent year. There is no reason as to why the assessee could be denied deduction under section 10B for the A.Ys 2003-04 & 2004-05 when no material has been brought on record to establish against the assessee who continued with the same business except the change in share holding which does not indicate any reconstruction in the assessee's business. In view of the assessee choosing to claim deduction u/s. 10B only by way of a revised return although was entitled to claim deduction under section 10B but was allowed deduction u/s. 80HHE would not disentitle the assessee to claim the deduction under section 10B of the Income Tax Act.

Customs

Reward to Informers - contraband seized two months after information was given, but same quantity and from same ship as furnished by informer - Department claims seizure was based on intelligence gathered later by an officer - Single Judge orders reward - Revenue appeal dismissed: Madras High Court

IN fact, this case in writ appeal is not based on any question on law and is dependent on the question of facts, particularly the question of fact as admitted by parties. The Department is in appeal against a Single Judge's order allowing reward to an informer.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements