Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise
Default in Monthly Payment of Duty - Explanation to Rule 8(3A) not considered by Settlement Commission - Matter remanded: HC
EXPLANATION.- For the purposes of this rule, the expressions 'duty' or 'duty of excise' shall also include the amount payable in terms of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; A reading of the Settlement Commission's order shows that it considered claim of the petitioner by applying Rule 8(3A) only. The Explanation appended thereto in Rule 8(3A) under the Notification No. 8/2007-C.E.(N.T) dated 1.3.2007 however has not been considered at all. The order of the Settlement Commission is quashed, thereby, the Settlement Commission is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass an order in terms of rule 8(3A) with its explanation appended thereto.
Income Tax
Whether when two warrants of authorisation are issued, AO is required to pass two separate assessment orders - YES, rules ITAT
ASSESSEE is a domestic company in the business of manufacture of non-ferrous metals and telecommunication equipments. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 was carried out at various locations on 08-12-1999. Block assessment orders were passed on 28-03-2002 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 158BC and several disallowances were made.
The issues before the Bench are - Whether when the search proceedings were concluded by a prohibitory order and the officer left the premises, the period of limitation for completing the assessment will begin from that date and not from the date of panchnamas recorded after conclusion of the search and whether where two warrants of authorization were issued, the Assessing officer is required to make two separate assessment. And the verdict goes in favour of the assessee.
Service Tax
Cenvat Credit – Outward Transport - Input service only if value is included in value of final products - Pre-deposit of 70 Lakhs ordered: CESTAT
IF the value of a service availed by an assessee does not form part of the assessable value on which central excise duty is payable, that service cannot be treated as an "input service" for the purpose of CENVAT credit, as permitting the CENVAT credit in respect of such a service will destroy the VAT character of the tax. notwithstanding the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in case of ABB Ltd. vs. CCE & ST = (), Bangalore , on the issue as to whether during the period prior to 1/3/08 CENVAT credit of service tax paid on outward freight was available, when the sales were not on FOR destination basis and the freight was not part of the assessable value, the Department still has a good arguable case
Until Monday with more DDT
Have a Nice Weekend.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com