Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise
Permission granted to clear goods without duty for processing – withdrawal of permission cannot be retrospective – High Court
IN the communication dated 6.1.1992 the Assistant Collector, Trichur, while withdrawing its earlier permission dated 7.10.1991, specifically stated that such withdrawal would take effect immediately and that the parties should apply to the Collector of Central Excise, for permission. Therefore, there can be no dispute nor can the first respondent or the other tyre manufacturer, viz., Apollo Tyres can be faulted for their action based on permission letter dated 7.10.1991 which was in operation between the date of issuance viz., 7.10.1991 and its withdrawal on 6.1.1992.
Income Tax
Sec 195 - Assessee books tickets for non-resident cruise tour company - remits sale proceeds of tickets after deducting commission - AO for TDS - since non-resident operates solely through agents and never touches any port in India, merely because tickets are booked for tour packages it cannot be said to have 'business connection' in India as per Sec 9(1)(i): ITAT
IN the present case services rendered by the assessee are general in nature as it s routine business activities and that cannot be interpreted to give colour of 'business connection as contemplated in sec. 9(1)(i) of the Act. In our opinion, it cannot be said that any income has been accrued to M/s. SCML in India in respect of the booking of tour packages of Cruise made by Assessee in India.
Customs
Export obligation could not be fulfilled due to cyclone destroying unit – Interest on duty paid in terms of bond – Bond is a contract and contract is discharged where its performance becomes impossible. Revenue writ against Settlement Commission order dismissed – High Court
CAN Settlement Commission waive interest? Assuming that Settlement Commission has no power to grant immunity from the payment of interest but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Settlement Commission has no power to enforce the contract which is already frustrated or which does not exist in the eye of law.