Jurisprudentiol– Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Common inputs and exempted final products – 10% not required to be paid on waste generated – Tribunal Larger Bench Decision in 2006-TIOL-1641-CESTAT-MUM set aside – High Court

THIS writ petition is filed to challenge the Larger Bench decision of the CESTAT dated 13-12-2006 - 2006-TIOL-1641-CESTAT-MUM-LB. The Larger Bench was constituted because of the conflicting decisions rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Rama Industries Ltd. V/s. C.C.E. reported in 2004-TIOL-213-CESTAT-DEL and in the case of Binani Zinc Ltd. V/s. CCE reported 2005-TIOL-1653-CESTAT-BANG .

The question referred to the Larger Bench was:-

"Whether 8% of the amount as per erstwhile Rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (now Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002) is required to be discharged, before removal of by products/subsidiary products when such products are exempted from whole of duty therein in light of the conflicting view in the above decisions."

Income Tax

Aishwarya Rai / Bachchan wins IT case - Assessee's income subjected to TDS in UK and USA - claims credit for the same - AO disallows - Since Articles of DTAA override provisions of domestic law, tax credit cannot be denied against Indian tax payable for such income: ITAT

ASSESSE, Aishwarya Rai , is an actress. She carries out assignments outside India and files a return of Rs 16.24 Crore. AO processes it u/s. 143(1) and a demand of Rs.76,88,239 was raised. The assessee applied for the rectification u/s. 154 of the said intimation on the ground that credit for tax deducted at source on foreign income was not given. The Assessing Officer considered the provisions of sections 4, 190 and 191 and came to the conclusion that no credit for such TDS certificate could be given because the assessee had failed to pay tax in respect of the foreign income under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Customs

Attempted export of antique Buddha - Penalty on CHA upheld: Bombay High Court

THE High Court held, “we, sitting in writ jurisdiction, cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the departmental authorities, and those findings, which are reasoned and based on relevant materials, cannot be called perverse either.”

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements