Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

CENVAT credit distribution from corporate office to different factories - Commissioner of unit should have got matter examined with his counterpart having jurisdiction over corporate office before re-distributing credit allocated: CESTAT

A number of officers in the field, including the Commissioners, often mis -understand the concept of input service distribution and somehow, it seems there is a lot of communication gap between the law makers and the field officers. Many believe that the credit from the corporate office should be distributed proportionately among different units of the assessee. Some believe that when the service received at the corporate office pertains to unit I, the credit of that service cannot be distributed to unit II, though both manufacture dutiable goods. This is one of the most popular queries raised in seminars organized by TIOL.

Income Tax

Preservation of environment covered under charitable activity – Pollution Control Board pursuing objects of general public utility. Collecting fee does not affect the situation - Cancellation of Registration as charitable organisation quashed - ITAT

THE assessee is a State Board, constituted under law, for playing a key role in the prevention, control or abatement of pollution of streams and wells in the State and other allied activities. The assessee is also engaged in dealing with matters relating to prevention of air pollution.

The Commissioner's case was that since the assessee was “earning income over the years in the nature of licence fees, consent fees, testing charges etc” and “since the basic objective of the protection of environment pursued by the Board involves the carrying on of such activities and the earning of such income, the object pursued cannot be considered to be a charitable purpose with effect from the assessment year 2009-2010.

CESTAT

Appeal filed against rejection of refund claims – Provisions of section 35B (6) of the CEA , 1944 not applicable – Minimum fees of Rs.1000 /- acceptable – CESTAT

IN the Customs refund case of Taksal Pharma P. Ltd. vs. CC(Airport), Mumbai [2007-TIOL-1450-CESTAT-Mum] , the appellant had filed an appeal to the Tribunal against an Order of the Commissioner(Appeals) & paid the fees of Rs.500 /- for COD and Rs.1000 /- for regular appeal. Even before their appeal was disposed, the Registry took an objection that the prescribed fees for filing the appeal were not paid. The objection was that since the refund claim involved was more than Rs. 5 lakhs , the appellant ought to have paid a fee of Rs.5000 /- in terms of Section 129A (6)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements