Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Provisions of section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 applies only when refund that is being sought is of customs duty - 4% Additional duty paid by mistake not a Customs duty – Matter remanded: CESTAT

PROVISIONS of section 27 of the Act applies only when the refund that is being sought is of customs duty otherwise leviable under the Act . In this case, the appellant is claiming the refund of the 4% Addl. Duty paid which was not leviable on the appellant. Hence, the provision of section 27 of the Act, which bound the appellant to file refund claim within six months of the assessment of the Bill of Entry, are not applicable to the case of the appellant. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. As observed in the impugned order that the refund claim has been dismissed being time barred and there is no finding given on merits.

Income Tax

Sec 35(1)(ii) - Can Revenue deny exemption u/s 10(21) to assessee academy merely because it was granted approval for scientific research in category of 'other institution'? - NO, says ITAT

THE issue before the Tribunal is - Whether Revenue can deny exemption u/s 10(21) to assessee academy merely because it was granted approval for scientific research in category of 'other institution'. NO, says the Tribunal.

Central Excise

MODVAT Credit – Denial of Credit on ground that invoice did not contain some particulars – Credit cannot be denied when duty payment and utilisation of inputs not doubted: High Court

THERE is no dispute regarding duty payment and use of goods in manufacture of final product and the credit has been denied only on the ground that necessary particulars were not mentioned in the invoices and the supplier, which issued those invoices, did not enter the particulars in their statutory records.

Wish you a bright Deepavali

See our columns Monday for the judgements