Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

When Service Tax and Interest Paid, No penalty; by evading payment of service tax, appellant stands to lose rather than getting any undue benefit: CESTAT

THERE was no need for the appellants to resort to suppression or mis-declaration since whatever service tax was to be paid, they were eligible for the credit. By evading the payment of service tax, the appellant stands to lose rather than getting any undue benefit. By delaying payment of service tax, the assessee had to pay interest on the amount, which is not available as CENVAT credit. Therefore, in this case, suppression of fact or mis-declaration could not have been invoked for imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Wealth Tax

Whether land occupied by building which is under construction approved by municipal authority, is to be excluded for purpose of wealth tax, within meaning to be given to urban land - NO, rules ITAT

THE individual assessee, his late mother and his brother - each owned one-third share of a property, a vacant land, at Dahisar. A portion of this property had been given to realtors under a development agreement and construction activity was going on in the property. The realtors were constructing a building on the land owned by the assessee with the approval of the appropriate authority. Construction was in progress for the various assessment years.

Customs

Undervaluation of goods imported and supplied to GAIL - Appellants did not provide any justifiable reason for abnormal discounts - Order rejecting transaction value maintainable: CESTAT

CUSTOMS authorities found that appellant had imported goods at 1/5th to 1/4th of the prices which were initially negotiated by GAIL with original supplier – Appellants did not provide any justifiable reason for abnormal discounts – In terms of Rule 10(1)(b) of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 department authorized to call for manufacturer's invoices in such circumstances but appellants chose not to submit such invoices – In terms of CC, Bombay vs. Shibani Engineering Systems, Bombay = 2002-TIOL-667-SC-CUS, such abnormally discounted prices not acceptable.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements