Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Excess Duty paid - No mens rea - No penalty under Section 11AC- High Court

THE Commissioner of Central Excise is the appellant. The only issue is relating to the deletion of penalty. The appellant seeks to raise the following substantial question of law:

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal was right in concluding that no penalty was imposable, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no discretion is available on the quantum of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, in the decision in Union of India vs. M/s.Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008-TIOL-192-SC-CX-LB)?"

Wealth Tax

Did commercial complex figure in list of assets prior to amendment in provisions of Sec 2(e)(a) - Yes, assessee not entitled to benefits of 2(e)(a) as amendment is prospective: ITAT

THE issue in the instant case relates to wealth tax. And the question before the Tribunal is - Whether prior to the amended provisions of section 2(e)(a) the commercial complexes were very much “assets” and the amended provisions, which excludes the commercial complex from the definition of “assets”, are prospective in effect. Whether as per the agreement between the assessee and the other party it can be construed that the agreement was for the lease of the property and hence benefit provided in section 2(e)(a) of the Act will not be available to the assessee as per the amended provisions of section 2(ea).

Service Tax

Cenvat Credit on ‘Garden Maintenance Service' is available under CCR, 2004 – Revenue's request for constituting a Larger Bench is totally irrelevant and unacceptable as contrary judgments referred to are ones pertaining to same appeals of assessee and which orders have been remanded by High Court: CESTAT

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements