Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise
EPABX system installed in factory premises for communication from one department to another department can be held to be indirectly used in manufacture of the final product – CENVAT Credit available - CESTAT
THE issue is credit of duty paid on EPABX system. In the second round of litigation (as the Tribunal had remanded the matter earlier), the Commissioner denied the MODVAT credit on the ground that the same is not used in process of manufacturing.
Service Tax
Quantification of duty in Show Cause Notice does not amount to predetermination of issue – writ cannot be allowed – High Court
THE quantification of the tax in the show cause notice is a statutory requirement and cannot be stated that the authority has predecided the issue. Therefore, the decision relied on by the counsel rendered by the Supreme Court in Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others - has no application to the facts of the present case.
Income Tax
Interest paid under Sec 75 of Finance Act, 1994 on delayed payment of service tax has same character as that of service tax - it's compensatory in nature - to be allowed as permissible business expenditure: Delhi High Court
ASSESSEE claims deduction for interest paid u/s 75 of Finance Act, 1994 on delayed payment of service tax - AO disallows on the ground that it is penal in nature - CIT(A) disagrees and holds that the interest payment is compensatory in nature and therefore a permissible business deduction - held,
++ interest payment u/s 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 has the same character as that of the service tax;
++ it is compensatory in nature and cannot be held to be penal in character; it is a permissible deduction.
Customs
Anti-dumping duty during interregnum period –pre-deposit ordered following ratio of Larger Bench decision - CESTAT
THE Larger Bench decision in case of M/s Nitco Tiles relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) has answered the controversy as to levy of anti-dumping duty during interregnum period. Following the ratio of the Nitco Tiles' case, decision in the case of Chhotulal Daga - was rendered. Even the case of Bansilal Leisure Parks Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata – has also followed the ratio of the decision in Nitco Tiles case (supra). While larger Bench decision was made in Nitco Tiles case, there is no controversy at all left as to leviability of anti-dumping duty during the interregnum period, in absence of stay of operation of that judgment or reversal thereof by higher court.
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com