Jurisprudentiol - Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Delayed Appeal by Central Excise on inaccurate facts - Strictures against Department - Action to be taken against officers who perform their duties casually and without application of mind: High Court

FAILURE to set out reasons for the delay in the application seeking condonation of delay shows complete callousness and dereliction of duty on the part of the Officer who had affirmed the application seeking condonation of delay. It is high time that appropriate action is taken against such officers who perform their duties casually and without application of mind.

Income Tax

Sec 158BC - Whether option of protective assessment is available to assessing officer even in block assessment cases - YES, says Delhi High Court

THE issue before the Bench is - Whether the option of protective assessment is available to the AO even in the block assessment cases. YES, rules the Delhi High Court.

Service Tax/Central Excise

It is nobody's case that there is no connection between the manufacture of cement by appellant and pollution caused by such activity - Availment of CENVAT credit of Service tax paid by agencies conducting such certification is proper in law : CESTAT

THE appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement, which is governed by the pollution control law. This law requires periodical certification of pollution level in the factory premises. As required by the law, the appellant availed the service of certification of pollution level in their factory premises, from two agencies during the period of dispute. The Service Tax paid by the said agencies was availed as CENVAT credit by the appellant treating the same as ‘Input Service'.

The jurisdictional authorities have objected to this availment on the ground that any service in relation to inspection or certification of pollution level was not a taxable service and consequently credit of any service tax on such service was not admissible.

See our columns Monday for the Judgements