Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Assessee did not choose to use raw-material in their final product? 2001 Rules applied for a 1989 case - Non-application of mind is writ large on this order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

This is a case relating to MODVAT Credit of 1989 where the Tribunal found non-application of mind and application of the 2001 Rules to a case which originated in 1989. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order in 2008 – after a good nine years and the case is back with him.

Income Tax

Disallowance of alleged loan – No question of law – no interference: Madras High Court

The assessee has not made any legal ground calling for interference of this Court and the order passed by the Tribunal in respect of both the claims raised cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. We find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. Hence the appeal fails and the same is dismissed and the question of law is answered against the appellant.

Service Tax

For the benefit of CENVAT credit on mobile phone service, it is necessary that the assessee should establish that the mobile phones were used exclusively for the purposes connected with their business activities or, directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture/clearance of excisable goods – CESTAT orders pre-deposit.

After verification of the mobile phone bills produced by the assessee, the original authority came to the conclusion that the mobile phones were used not only for business purposes but also for personal purposes. On this basis, the authority took the view that the mobile phones were not used in or in relation to the manufacture or clearance of the final products. In the result, the demand of service tax was confirmed against the assessee and equal amount of penalty was imposed on them.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements