Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Appeal before CESTAT – Condonation of delay - technicalities shall not stand in way of a party getting the relief before appropriate forum. What is important is that substantial justice should be rendered - Delay condoned : High Court

IT is well settled principle of law that when the technicalities and substantial justice are pitted against each other and the Courts would always lean in favour of substantial justice rather than technicalities for non-suiting the petitioner on the ground that the appeal has not been filed within the time stipulated in spite of the fact that the authorities are conferred with the power to condone the delay. Likewise, the limitation prescribed is not for destruction of statutory right and is only to give finality without protracting the matter endlessly.

Income Tax

The set off of loss as mentioned in section 72 says that carry forward of loss is to be set off against profits and gains of any business or profession carried on by assessee and assessable for subsequent asst. year: ITAT

THUS, 90% of the deduction as computed u/s 10B is admissible as per second proviso for the asst. year 2003-04 and 10% of such deduction becomes assessable for the asst. year 2003-04. Once such income becomes assessable for the asst. year 2003-04, then loss of earlier year can be set off in view of section 72(1)(i). Hence, the loss of asst. year 2001-02 is required to be set off as claimed by the assessee. Thus, it is held that the CIT(A) was not justified in disallowing the carry forward loss of asst, year 2001-02.

Central Excise

Luxury Tax on Snuff challenged by assessee and deduction not claimed from Assessable value u/s 4 of CEA, 1944 - Once challenge failed and luxury tax was paid, same is entitled for deduction from AV - Refund of Central Excise duty proper : CESTAT

THE respondents are the manufacturer of “Snuff” falling under Ch. 24 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. With effect from 01.05.2001, the Maharashtra Government imposed luxury tax @8% on snuff. The respondents contested the levy of luxury tax and did not collect the said tax and also did not pay the same to the State Government and they also did not claim any abatement on this count for arriving at the assessable value for payment of Central Excise duty.

See our columns Monday for the judgements