Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Furnace Oil used in manufacture of exempted steam – Cenvat Credit - No suppression can be alleged when judicial decisions were in favour of assessee: High Court

In the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal to the effect that at the relevant time there was a decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal as well as of this High Court in favour of the respondent, which gets reinforced by the fact that Commissioner (Appeals) had decided in favour of the respondent on merits, it appears that there was an ambiguity as regards the applicability of the relevant Rules.

Income Tax

Income tax - bad debt - merely because a criminal complaint for recovery of debt has been pending, it does not mean that debt continues to be good - Revenue's appeal dismissed: Gujarat HC

CLAIMING deduction for bad debt continues to be a hot dispute despite recent amendments in the I-T Act. The issue before the High Court is - Whether the ITAT is justified in reversing the order of the AO wherein the AO has declined to allow write-off of the debt on the ground that the matter has been pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate and it cannot be said that the debt has become bad. And the verdict has gone against the Revenue.

Service Tax

Interior works such as pest control, demolition & dismantling, masonry work, wall preparation - now taxed under 'Commercial or industrial construction service', cannot be taxed under ‘Interior Decorator Service' during earlier period: CESTAT

The appellants were undertaking interior works such as pest control, demolition & dismantling, masonry work, wall preparation viz. cement, plaster, POP planning; flooring & cladding, works like wall paneling, false ceiling, interior furnishing, partitioning of Banks, Financial Institutions and other firms, etc. It was noticed by the lower authority that the appellants have provided these services to their clients, mostly software companies, Banks, etc., but were not discharging the service tax liability on such services. The lower authorities felt that the services rendered by the appellants fall under the category of ‘Interior Decorator Service' as defined under Section 65(59) of the Finance Act, 1994. Coming to such a conclusion, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demands and imposed penalties and sought recovery of the same.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements