Jurisprudentiol - Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Mobile phone service - CENVAT credit cannot be denied on the ground that it is a perquisite given to employees as a fringe benefit or that the premises where the service is being availed is beyond the registered manufacturing premises - Once adjudicating authority has held that credit is admissible and that portion of the order has not been appealed against, the order becomes final: CESTAT

A look at this case and one will be forced to agree that the Revenue authorities have an uncanny ability to come up with innovative ideas to deny CENVAT Credit in spite of the fact that the issue has been amply clarified by the CBEC in its Master Circular 97/8/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007.

Income Tax

Sec 10B - Whether deduction is to be allowed after setting off brought forward losses from previous year - YES, says ITAT

THE issue before the ITAT is - Whether deduction u/s 10B is to be allowed after setting off the brought forward losses from previous year. YES is the Tribunal's answer.

Central Excise

CENVAT Credit cannot be denied on Plastic Crates used for transportation of finished goods to customers premises: CESTAT

IT is allegation in the show cause notice that the plastic crates procured by the appellants were used for handling the material whereas the terms input has a conventional meaning inasmuch as it should get wholly or substantially used up by the time the output emerges. As such, the plastic crates used by the appellants as material handling equipments could hardly be treated as inputs as the definition of input under rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be extended to encompass the goods which are material handling equipments.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements