Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Mango Pickles not intended for retail sale and cleared to Nestle for free distribution are correctly assessed in terms of transaction value u/s 4 of Central Excise Act.

THE respondents are engaged in the manufacture of pickle and ketchup which is covered under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is alleged that the respondent has cleared the mango avakai pickles without declaring the MRP. The respondent has shown in the product declaration form dated 01.07.1999, Nil MRP as the product was distributed for sale promotion and they determined the assessable value under section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It is the allegation of the Revenue that the assessee had contravened the provisions of section 4A read with rule 9(1) and, therefore, demand was raised for demanding differential duty.

Income Tax

Whether, in property deal, capital gains become leviable right from day assessee receives part payment and executes sale deed, and not from day when it receives balance payment - from day assessee receives part payment: ITAT

ASSESSEES are owner of certain lands - filed their return of income of the impugned year, declaring long term capital gain (LTCG) - AO while finalizing the assessment levied interest of sections 234A, 234B and 234C. The issues before the Bench are - Whether, in a property deal, capital gains become leviable right from the day assessee receives part payment and executes the sale deed and not from the day when it receives the balance payment - Whether charging interest is mandatory and whether when interest is charged in the ITN-150 while computing tax, there is no substance in the assessee's contention that AO did not charge interest specifically in the body of the order. And the verdict goes against the assessee.

Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim on grounds not alleged in show-cause notice is not legal: CESTAT

COMMISSIONER (Appeals) has set aside the lower adjudicating authority's order on the premise, that the grounds of unjust enrichment and that the refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 is not allowable were, not part of the impugned show-cause notice. Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. held that unjust enrichment has not been made applicable to the goods exported. The Tribunal in the case of Sparkler Ceramics Pvt. Ltd held that question of unjust enrichment will not be applicable to this case as it involves export of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given clear and cogent finding and no reason to interfere with the same.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements