Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

The reasoning for reversal of CENVAT credit is not relevant. The re-credit has to be taken by filing refund claim only - CESTAT

AS per the ‘oral' directions given by the Central Excise officers who ‘visited' the assessee, the appellants reversed the CENVAT credit Under Protest. After one year when no show-cause notice was issued and nothing was heard from the department in writing about the alleged offence committed, the appellants took back the amount of CENVAT credit reversed by them in the CENVAT account and intimated the department. This ‘one-tight-slap' was too much to bear. The jurisdictional authorities immediately issued a show-cause-cum-demand notice on the ground that the appellants should have actually filed a refund claim and should not have taken the credit back suo motu .

Income Tax

Whether when assessee transfers brand, trademark and other interests in a health periodical, held as intangible assets, profits arising out of such transactions are to be treated as capital gains or business income - capital gains, says HC

ASSESSEE is a private limited company engaged in the business of Healthcare, print media & electronic media communications – it entered into a 'Specified Assets Transfer Agreement' with one ‘CMPIPL' for the sale of all its rights, titles and interest in specified assets of its Healthcare Journals & Communications business for a consideration of Rs. 3.80 crores. The issue before the HC is - Whether when assessee transfers brands, trademark and interests in a health periodical, held as intangible assets, the profit arising out of such transaction is to be treated as capital gains or business income.

Customs

Merely because there is a huge difference in duty between show cause notice and admitted amount, case of petitioner cannot be thrown out: HC

THE Settlement Commission has prima facie failed to consider the investigation report on its merits. The Settlement Commission has failed to consider the investigation report submitted by the Commissioner which the Settlement Commission is bound to consider in terms of Section 127C(7) for passing appropriate order under Section 127C(9). Though at one stage the Settlement Commission has stated that the Revenue has conceded there were some errors in the calculation, in paragraph 24 of the order passed by the Settlement Commission it has been stated that the evidence furnished by the department is based on the official records and the bills issued by the applicant and as such the demand of the department is prima facie corroborated.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements