Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Settlement Commission is for Settlement not Adjudication; Settlement amount based on Investigation Commissioner's Report – Revenue cannot challenge; settlement Application can be made before Show Cause Notice – High Court

WE feel that if we accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, then it will discourage people from approaching the Settlement Commission. It must be emphasized that the expression used in the relevant provisions is “settlement” in contradiction to “adjudication” and therefore the very scheme of the relevant provisions is settlement and not adjudication. In these circumstances, a pragmatic and practical view should govern the proceedings before the Settlement Commission.

Income Tax

Sec 10A - Can Assessee claim deduction for miscellaneous income as derived from business of export - YES, says ITAT

THE issue before the Tribunal is - whether income shown under the head ‘miscellaneous income' on account of service charges, exchange gain, overtime charges and services charges for procuring hardware, packing and clearing, can be said to be the income derived from industrial undertaking and, therefore, eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act. YES is the answer of the Tribunal.

Service Tax

MSRTC allowing some of their buses to be hired by various agencies for conducting tours in connection with picnic, marriage, student excursion etc - Prima facie not tour operator - stay granted: CESTAT

PRIOR to the amendment, “Tour Operator” meant any person engaged in the business of operating tours in a vehicle covered by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Rules made thereunder . The department has no case that the buses given to private agencies against hire charges during the period of dispute were covered by any such permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act/Rules. None of such vehicles has been shown to have been covered by any tour permit issued by the Motor Vehicles authority. It has also not been shown that the Road Transport Corporation was engaged in the business of operating tours prior to or after 10.09.2004. Prima facie, therefore, the demand of service tax confirmed against the appellant is not sustainable in law.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements