Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Income Tax

Computation of deduction u/ s80 HHC - entire amount received on sale DEPB not to be taken – only profit on sale of DEPB to be considered – The subsequent sale of DEPB is a step divorced from export and such profits are not export profits - ITAT Sp. Bench

It is noticed that export incentive is provided by way of face value of DEPB . It is this value, which has relation with export business. The subsequent sale of DEPB is a step divorced from export. The relation between act of exporting goods and DEPB exists only upto the stage of its acquisition and not thereafter. Once the DEPB is acquired pursuant to exports, the subsequent events of its utilization for self consumption or making imports for resale or sale of DEPB as such, are independent transactions unrelated to export.

Service Tax

No provision under CESTAT Rules directing Principal Officer filing appeals to attach requisite authorization to file appeals before CESTAT – Preliminary objection of Revenue to dismiss appeal for lack of proof of authorization in favour of person filing appeal, liable for rejection: CESTAT

THE Revenue raised a preliminary objection that the person who filed the appeals on behalf of the assessee as its principal officer has not filed the requisite authorization from company that he is the authorized person to files such an appeal before CESTAT. The assessee, on other hand contended that such a provision does not exist in CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and that the appeal filed before the CESTAT was duly processed by the Registry and placed before the Bench for consideration.

Central Excise

Refund of unutilized amount in PLA - money is that of assessee and can be claimed by him without attracting provisions of refund claim: CESTAT

The money lying in PLA is actually the money belonging to the assessee. The fact that the same was re-credited in PLA will not make a difference, inasmuch as the same was originally paid by the assessee and utilized at the time of first clearance of the goods. The same has been again credited in terms of the Notification. The fact that Notification allows re-credit of duty paid is not to be interpreted in a manner that the re-credit amount would not belong to the assessee. Undisputedly, the re-credited amount is owned by the assessee and the Provisions of Para 2A of Notification are only to the effect that the said re-credited amount may be utilized for further payment of duty in the subsequent months. Where the appellant is not in a position to utilize the credit, the balance lying in PLA can be refunded to him in cash, inasmuch as the Notification does not bar such refund.

See our columns Monday for the judgements