Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Revenue representative has put his best foot forward while arguing for Revenue but at same time lack of evidences cannot carry case of Revenue any further – buyback of final products from contract manufacturer in itself would not indicate that prices of aromatic compounds are influenced - Appeal rejected: CESTAT

WE would like to compliment the learned SDR in as much that he has put his best foot forward, while arguing for the revenue, but at the same time lack of evidences could not carry the case of revenue any further. It is also to be noted that there is no evidence is brought on record by the Revenue, to hold that the price was not the sole consideration for the sale of such aromatic compounds to the contract manufacturers.

Income Tax

Whether income from subletting of excess office space with business assets is business income, and depreciation on assets leased is to be allowed - YES: ITAT

THE two issues before the Bench are - Whether income arising from subletting of excess office space with business assets is to be treated as business income, and depreciation on the assets given on lease is to be allowed - Whether provisions of section 14A are not applicable to the income falling under chapter-III by virtue of amendment made by Finance Act 2000. And the answers go in favour of the assessee.

Customs

Customs - Anti Dumping Duty on tyres, tubes and tyre-flaps - DA has fairly recorded his findings on evaluation of various economic factors and has then taken an overall view. No reason to interfere: CESTAT

DA has taken into consideration the provisions of Rule 11 of the Anti-Dumping Rules and the Annexure-II to the Rules referred to therein in regard to determination of injury. He has examined both the volume effect and the price effect of the dumped imports referred to in clause (i) of the said Annexure II and he has examined the relevant economic factors referred to in clause (iv) of the said Annexure II. It is well settled that the DA is required to examine the overall impact of the dumped imports by evaluation of all the economic factors as a whole and not be guided by evaluation of any particular economic criterion. That is what has been done in this case.

See our columns Monday for the judgements