Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

A presumption under section 114(e) of Evidence Act is available in respect of postal acknowledgement card that public proceedings have been regularly and lawfully performed inasmuch as a copy of Order-in-Original had been served on an agent of the company – Appeal rightly dismissed by Commissioner(A) as time barred – CESTAT

AN order of adjudication concerning denial of CENVAT credit was passed on 8.2.2005, against which the party filed an appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30.8.2005. That appeal was obviously beyond the period of limitation prescribed under sec. 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and even beyond the condonable period of delay of 30 days prescribed under the said provision. On this basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred.

Income Tax

Sec 154 - Assessee treats power subsidy as capital receipt - Revenue allows - but later rectifies order to deny claim on basis of Apex Court decision - Powers under Sec 154 allow Revenue to rectify only 'mistake apparent' and not debatable allowance: SC Larger Bench

THE Income Tax Act provides room for rectification of mistake under Sec 154. But, what does constitute 'rectifiable mistake'? Should it be a 'mistake apparent from the record' or it can be allowance of a claim which is perhaps not admissible to the assessee. Or, Revenue can change its opinion later on the basis of a court decision, on a claim allowed in the assessment order and can take recourse to powers u/s 154 to deny the same? This is exactly the issue before the Apex Court in this case.

Central Excise

Revenue loses Seven Crore case in Tribunal: Process of making Multi Drug Therapy (MDT) combi pack is manufacture – Appellants entitled to take Cenvat Credit – CESTAT

If the stand of Revenue in this case is accepted, no medicine packed in blister pack will be chargeable to excise duty since tablets/ capsules in loose condition are considered as marketable by the lower authorities. No doubt, in some cases tablets are sold in loose condition also. It is for this reason that Revenue is required to establish that goods were marketable even before the process was undertaken.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements