Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise
It is duty of department to verify exemption sought by appellant as mentioned in ER-1 returns to extent why exemption has been claimed and whether credit has been reversed or not Department having failed in its duty, extended period not invokable: CESTAT
IT was well within the knowledge of the department that the goods have been cleared as exempted goods, the said fact has been confirmed by the Superintendent of Central Excise in his report to invoke extended period. Department was having the knowledge as it is clear that the respondent is clearing their goods as an exempted goods shown in the ER-1 returns, which were being filed periodically by the respondent.
Income Tax
Sec 271(1)(c) - Penalty cannot be imposed merely on allegation that trade liabilities shown in books ceased to exist as notices sent to creditors at wrong addresses were not responded: ITAT
THE question before the Tribunal is whether penalty u/s 271(1)(C) is leviable on mere allegation that the trade liabilities shown in the books ceases to exist, ignoring that the notices issued to the creditors were wrongly addressed because of which no body appeared before the AO. And the Tribunal's answer is NO.
Service Tax
Merely because appellant is registered with PF department as Security provider does not imply that they were 'Security Agency Service' providers and leviable to Service Tax Demand cannot be justified: CESTAT
WHEN the service tax is being demanded is on security agency service, it is the responsibility of the department to show that the appellant did render this service. When the invoice does not show details; some of the receivers could have been contacted and details obtained as to the nature of service received by them. No investigation whatsoever has been conducted in this case.
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your commen
ts to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com