Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Claim of DEPB/Drawback on goods exported from raw materials imported under exemption Notification No 32/97 Cus - No case to deny benefit under Notification No 32/97 Cus - CESTAT.

THE appellants have imported shoe soles free of duty under Notification No. 32/97-Cus. dated 1.4.97 for the purpose of job work and they have exported shoes after satisfying the prescribed value addition of 10%. They have claimed drawback on some of the Shipping Bills and DEPB benefit on some others which has been allowed by the customs authorities after satisfying themselves that the export value does not include the value of exempted soles received under Notification No. 32/97. Subsequently the authorities have sought to deny exemption under Notification 32/97

Income Tax

Whether when assessee makes a claim u/s 43B, a CA's certificate in place of original tax challan is sufficient to prove that tax was deposited - NO, says ITAT

THE assessee has claimed deduction of certain sum as envisaged in section 43B. The AO disallowed the same for the want of original challan. Appeal was filed in the ITAT which remanded it to the file of the CIT(A) - In the second round, the CIT(A) disallowed the amount. Before ITAT a cicular of the board was relied upon for the proposition that in relation to the payments covered u/s 43B a certificate of CA was also sufficient.

Central Excise

Valuation - Jobwork - Jobworked goods consumed by principal manufacturer and not sold - Rules 10A(i) or (ii) or Rule 8 of Valuation Rules not applicable - CESTAT

THE provisions of Rule 8 will not get attracted in this case. By elimination of Rule 2 to 10 as they may not apply in a situation like in this case provisions of Rule 11 will apply and Revenue has to take the recourse to provisions of Rule 11 which talks about using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules read with sub-section (1) of section 4 of Central Excise Act. 1944. Keeping this in mind, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints and followed by various other decisions of this Tribunal and accepted by Revenue in their various Circulars will squarely apply i.e. to ascertain the assessable value on the cost of materials plus processing charges.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements