Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Interest on Bank Deposits and other advances cannot be treated as income from export business to be eligible for exemption under Section 10A: ITAT

THE assessee is a 100% EOU engaged in manufacture and export of tools, dies and moulds and has been claiming exemption under Section 10 A of the IT Act. For the AY 2001-02 and 2002-03, the assessee received income in the form of interest on bank deposits and other advances. The AO denied the exemption under Sec 10 A to the other income, be treating the same as income from other sources. The same has been confirmed by the CIT(A).

Central Excise

Non-excisability of Zinc Dross declared by Apex Court in case of Tata Iron & Steels Co. Ltd remains - Pre-deposit waived of Rs.4 crores and stay granted: CESTAT

ALTHOUGH it is an admitted fact that every prudent manufacturer would like to minimize waste for it is not commercially viable, Revenue seems to think otherwise and is always at logger heads with the assessee trying devious ways to recover Central Excise duty on the same. This is in spite of the fact that there are settled decisions holding that this waste is not excisable. Either it will be an amendment to the definition of “excisable goods” or for that matter an entry in the Central Excise Tariff. Unfortunately, more pressing issues are usually missed in this adventurism.

Central Excise

Refund of duty paid on goods cleared on strength of CT 2 certificate due to lack of understanding between range superintendents – duty paid cannot be treated as paid under protest nor assessment can be treated as provisional - rejection of refund on ground of time bar upheld: CESTAT

WHILE seeking a clarification from the Superintendent, Uran Range , the Superintendent, Dehradun, directed the appellant to pay duty on the goods supplied against the CT 2, which was paid by the appellant.

Just because in case of clearances at nil or concessional rate having been made by an assessee against a CT-2 certificate produced by the customer and the customer has executed a bond, the assessment of duty at the assessee's end does not become provisional.

Accordingly, the CESTAT has dismissed the appeal.

Moral of the story: Don't oblige the Range Superintendent and pay duty.

See our columns Monday for the judgements