Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Imported cars - Central Excise duty demand on assembling activity does not amount to double taxation - duty upheld: CESTAT

THE appellant had imported parts of 15 cars and had cleared the same on payment of Customs duty at the rate of appropriate rates. They had purchased the car bodies (Chassis) of 15 Honda Cars from a public auction held by Bombay Port Trust through the auctioneers Gandhi & Co. Thereafter using the imported parts, car bodies purchased from auction and also 15 engines purchased locally, they had assembled 15 cars.

These 15 cars were subsequently seized by the officers of Mumbai Customs and a show-cause notice dt. 22.10.1986 was issued under the Customs Act, 1962 alleging that 15 Honda cars were imported into the country in CKD condition. On the same set of 15 Honda cars that were assembled, the Collector of Central Excise, Mumbai-I too wanted to have his share of Central Excise duty.

Income Tax

Income tax - Whether services like repair and maintenance constitute an integral part of manufacturing of Industrial Undertaking as per Sec 80IB - NO, rules ITAT Special Bench

THE issues before the Special Bench are - Whether services like repair and maintenance constitute an integral part of manufacturing of industrial undertaking - Whether any income derived from such jobwork of repair and maintenance is also eligible for Sec 80IB benefits and whether such income has any direct nexus with the main activity of the industrial activity. And the verdict has gone against the assessee.

Service Tax

Service rendered in Mumbai - Ratnagiri Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction: CESTAT

IT is the Commissioner in whose territorial jurisdiction the registered office of the service provider is located, has the jurisdiction over him irrespective of the place where service is provided. In the instant case, the service has been provided at Mumbai and the registered office is also situated in Mumbai. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Ratnagiri has no jurisdiction over the activities undertaken by the respondent in Mumbai.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements