Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Exempted goods exported – CENVAT Credit entitled on inputs and refund of Credit also entitled: High Court

AN assessee, manufacturing goods chargeable to nil duty, is eligible to avail CENVAT credit paid on the inputs under the exception clause to rule 6(1), as contained in 6(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and Rule 6(6) CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, used in the manufacture of such goods, if the goods are exported.

It is clear from a bare reading of rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that a manufacturer, who exports the final products which are exempt from duty, can claim refund of CENVAT

Income Tax

Whether interest is chargeable after allowing MAT credit available under section 115JAA - Yes, says: HC

AO issued notice for rectifying intimation issued to the assessee - In the notice the AO sought to rectify the MAT figure, however while doing rectification the AO also levied interest u/s 234B and 234C and that too without allowing the benefit of MAT - Assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) - CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assesee and directed the AO to charge interest after allowing benefit of MAT - Revenue filed appeal before the ITAT - ITAT heard the matter ex-parte and allowed the appeal of the revenue - Thereafter, assessee filed miscellaneous application and ITAT recalled its order and allowed the appeal of the assessee observing that charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C is debatable issue and hence not rectifiable u/s 154 - ITAT further observed that otherwise also interest is chargeable after allowing the MAT credit - Revenue filed appeal before the High Court.

Customs

Commissioner's conclusion, that months of May and September are most pleasant for all countries in Northern hemisphere, is too strict a view: CESTAT

THE Commissioner of Customs (Import) is a learned man. He could see through the fib of the appellant's and hence showed no leniency. But then, the law allowed him to bestow his consideration and pardon the appellant, which he did not.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements