Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Compounded levy scheme in respect of Aluminium Circles and utensils - Rule 96ZB of CER , 1944 - whether mere presence of two more cold-rolling machines enough to saddle central excise duty liability by assuming production on their account or is installation of machines essential - Difference of opinion: Matter referred to President: CESTAT

THE appellant was engaged in the manufacture of aluminium circles and utensils during the material period, during which period a compounded levy scheme was in vogue. In terms of rule 96ZB of the CER, 1944 read with the notification 33/1997-CE dated 30.05.1997, in respect of a cold rolling machine installed for manufacturing Aluminium Circles the rate of duty was Rs.7500 /- per month per machine.

Income Tax

Sec 80IB - Central Excise refund and interest subsidy are not eligible for deduction as they were not provided by Govts for acquisition of capital assets prior to commencement of production: ITAT

THE assessee -firm is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of aluminium alloy and zinc alloy ingots. It claims deduction u/s 80IB . During the Course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. treated the refund of Excise Duty and Interest Subsidy, as income not eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act. The findings of the A.O. were upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). Both held that these receipts are not derived from industrial undertaking.

Service Tax

Incorporation of additional grounds in appeal memo challenging taxability of appellant's activity – appellant accepted and paid tax liability and contested only penal liability before adjudicating authority - since no such issue taken before lower authority, it is to be considered as an afterthought - Application rejected: CESTAT

PURSUANT to a case booked by the Revenue, the appellant voluntarily paid service tax with interest. However, the show-cause notice and adjudication proceedings at the hands of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Aurangabad led to the appellant being saddled with penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements