Jurisprudentiol - Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Remission of duty - Appellant reversing Cenvat credit and filing application for remission of C.Ex duty – later claiming refund based on CESTAT LB decision in Grasim Industries and before passage of order by the Commissioner granting remission of duty – such claim cannot be denied on the ground that the order of the Commissioner laying down reversal of Credit has not been challenged – Matter remanded: CESTAT

THE facts of the case are that the appellants applied for remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 for the goods which were unfit for home consumption and marketing. The appellants reversed the Cenvat credit involved on inputs used for manufacture of these goods, on which remission was claimed, on 25.7.2006 and 13.11.2006. Later on, relying on the decision of the Larger Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Grasim Industries Vs. CCE Indore - (2007-TIOL-135-CESTAT-DEL-LB) wherein it was held that reversal of credit on inputs is not required as per law , the appellants filed refund claims of the Cenvat credit reversed by them on 25.7.2006 and 13.11.2006.

Income Tax

Sec 32(1)(ii) - Is assessee, Hindustan Coca Cola, entitled to depreciation on 'goodwill' for which it paid to bottlers for marketing and trading reputation, territory knowhow, distribution network and customer database? - Yes, rules Delhi High Court

THE issues before the High Court are - Whether assessee is entitled to depreciation on goodwill which conveys a positive reputation built by a person / company / business concern over a period of time and is an ‘intangible asset' which includes, along with other things, any other business or commercial rights of ‘similar nature' and whether where two views were possible and when the assessing officer had accepted one view which was a plausible one, the commissioner was empowered to apply section 263. And the answer to the first question is YES, and for the second questions is NO.

Customs

Department's contention that since appellant has not claimed ownership of gold same cannot be redeemed to him is not sustainable as section 125 of Customs Act - CESTAT

THIS case booked by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has a chequered history and owes its origin to the events that unfolded at the Mumbai airport in the winter month of October, 1992.

The short facts of the case goes thus - Shri Yakub Ibrahim Yusuf, the appellant (who has appeared in person before the CESTAT) was intercepted at N.I.P.T., Module-II, Mumbai on his arrival from London to Mumbai by Air India flight AI-132 while he was carrying 25 kgs of gold. The 25 kgs. of gold was found in two black colours boxes in the brief case alongwith foreign currency of market value of Indian Rs. 6,54,830/-. The appellant stated before the DRI officers that the gold carried by him belongs to one Shri Illiyas Patel, Smt. Memuda I.Patel, Smt. Munira M. Laly and her two minor sons, Master Shohil M. Laly and Master Faiyaz M. Laly (five persons). In their statements recorded, Shri Illiyas Patel, Smt. Mamuda Illiyas Patel and Smt. Munira M. Laly stated that the gold carried by Shri Yakub was not belonging to them and they were not carrying any foreign currency for payment of Customs duty.

See our columns Tomorrow for the Judgements