Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise
Settlement Commission – At time of admission of Settlement application, applicant is required to deposit only admitted amount – Commission's direction to deposit full amount quashed – The object of legislation is not to close door for settlement. - High Court
THE object of the Legislature is to open the doors for settlement. It is well settled canon of construction that in construing the provisions of a beneficial legislation, the Court should adopt the construction, which advances, fulfils and furthers the object of the Act rather than the one, which would defeat the same and prevent settlement. Beneficial statutes should not be construed too rigidly as it was for the protection of certain class of persons that the statute was enacted. The intention of the legislature and the policy underlying it has also to be kept in mind.
Income Tax
International Taxation - if correct arms length price is applied and paid, nothing further would be left to be taxed in hands of foreign enterprise. Morgan Stanley - () and SET Satellite - correctly followed.- ITAT
CBDT Circular No. 23 of 1969 is eloquently clear providing that if the value of the profit attributable to the services rendered by the agent is fully represented by the commission paid, it should, prima facie extinguish the assessment.
The assessment of the amount of profits, allowance will be made for the expenses incurred, including the agent's commission, in making the sales and if the agent's commission fully represents the value of the profit attributable to his service, it should prima facie extinguish the assessment.
Central Excise
Rule 25 of CER, 2002 can be invoked without reference to section 11AC for imposing penalty if any of grounds enumerated is operative – Remission of duty application rejected by Commissioner but not appealed against – Duty liability unquestionable but penalty and interest u/s 11AC, 11AB not sustainable – CESTAT.
IN the unprecedented rains that caused havoc in Mumbai in July 2005, the appellant suffered at the hands of mother-nature. Water flooded his manufacturing unit damaging the stock of finished goods, raw materials etc. As soon as the rain water subsided, the manufacturer salvaged as much as he could but by then enough damage was already done. As a diligent manufacturer, he informed the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities about the damaged stock whereupon the Range officers inspected the factory and conducted verification of documents and stocks of the finished goods and raw materials.
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com