Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Unjust enrichment - Merely because MRP of goods remains same when duty is paid and when goods are cleared at Nil rate of duty, it cannot be presumed that burden of duty has not been passed on to customers - Matter remanded: CESTAT

REVENUE filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner( Appeals) has allowed the refund claim filed by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that as the MRP (Maximum Retail Price) during the period in dispute the goods remains the same, therefore, it is presumed that the burden of duty has not been passed on.

Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Declaring positive income as losses in return and not rectifying same even after being pointed out amount to furnishing of wrong particulars - Penalty sustainable: ITAT

THE issue before the Tribunal is - Whether declaring positive income as losses in the return, and not rectifying the same even after being pointed out, amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars and whether it calls for invocation of penalty. And the Tribunal's answer is YES.

Service Tax

Service Tax - Export - Filing of declaration only procedural – substantial benefit cannot be denied – Tribunal's order in 2009-TIOL-888-CESTAT-DEL upheld – Revenue Appeal Dismissed: High Court

ANY service cannot be disqualified on the basis that the same has only peripheral connection with the output service as long as it is proven the same has been used in providing export services. Once it is established that the said services have been used for providing the output service, rebate claim becomes admissible subject to verification of the payment of service tax on the said services

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements