Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Members of CESTAT who had expressed dissenting opinions were not justified in referring entire appeal instead of making a statement referring point or points of difference – Gujarat HC

It is apparent that the two members who recorded dissenting opinions having referred the entire appeal instead of making a statement referring the point or points of difference between the members, in the circumstances, the reference itself is invalid and as such deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, in the light of decision of this Court in the case of Colourtex v. Union of India (supra), the question is answered in the negative. It is held that the Members of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal who had expressed dissenting opinions were not justified in referring the entire appeal instead of making a statement referring the point or points of difference.

Income Tax

FBT - In absence of proximate purpose of expenses incurred by assessee company for agencies cannot be treated as fringe benefit under deeming provision of Sec 115WB(2): ITAT

THE issue is - When there is no proximate purpose of the expenses paid by the assessee company for its agencies other than the employees then whether the same can be considered as fringe benefit under the deeming provision of section 115WB(2) of Act. And the answer is NO.

Service Tax

Automobile dealer providing table space in his premises to lending institutions/banks to set up financial assistance counters cannot be called promoting and marketing business of bank/lending institution so as to be charged to Service Tax under BAS – Demand set aside with consequential relief: CESTAT

In this case, the appellant had provided table space to the financial institutions for which they were getting some money from them. Hence, the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision of Silicon Honda wherein it was held that the activity for providing the table space to the financial institutions cannot be brought within the definition of “Business Auxiliary Service”. Hence, in this case also, the activity taken over by the appellant is not a “Business Auxiliary Service”.

See our columns Monday for the judgements