Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

10% amount paid under rule 6(3)(b) and collected from customers has to be added to price to arrive at liability under CCR, 2004 – Demand upheld - CESTAT

It is clear from the records that if the appellants did not want to suppress the facts, there were no reason to recover the said amount by a separate commercial invoice of a different series rather than the invoice under which the goods were purportedly sold. So, the appellants are liable to pay duty on the amount recovered subsequently through commercial invoices.

Income Tax

Tax paid by employer in respect of salary paid to employees would constitute non-monetary perquisite, eligible for exemption u/s 10(10CC) of Act. If CIT(A) had followed order of Special Bench, unnecessary and unwarranted appeal by assessee could have been avoided.

AN AO and a CIT(A) blatantly refuse to follow the decision of a Special Bench of the ITAT. What happens to them? Absolutely nothing because the Tribunal finds that the disobedience was not with a view to harass the assessee.

Customs

Non-filing of appeal against assessed bill of entry does not bar assessee from claiming excess duty paid as refund in terms of Section 27 (1)(ii) of Customs Act - Matter remanded to original authority: Delhi High Court

THE assessee inadvertently paid excess duty at the time of import without availing the benefit of exemption notification 6/2002. Subsequently the assessee filed a claim seeking refund of the excess duty paid in view of the benefit available to them in terms of Notification 6/2002. Their claim was rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that this assessment of Bill of Entry which resulted in higher payment of duty, was not appealed against by the assessee. The decisions of the lower authorities were upheld by the CESTAT.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements