Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Pre-deposit is rule and waiver is an exception - Appellant is a public sector undertaking and very solvent. If it is so, nothing wrong in depositing a sum of Rs. 90.00 lakh as is indicated by tribunal: HC

ORDERS passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunals in exercise of their power under the proviso to Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) or corresponding provision of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have become orders which are a source of perennial litigation and nothing but a case of much ado about nothing! It is rather paradoxical that whether it be the assessee, by and large always the assessee, or even revenue, seeks to give more importance to the proviso than to the main section viz.., Section 129E of the Act, a provision mandating the deposit of the amount in dispute before an appellate authority as a condition for maintaining the appeal, but the proviso making an exception for a relaxation in certain circumstances.

Income Tax

Whether where provisions of Sec 49 apply and indexed cost of improvement is allowed, benefits of indexed cost of acquisition is also available to assessee - YES: Delhi HC

ONE Mr Arun Shungloo acquired property No.D-11, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, sometime before 1st April, 1981. On 5th January, 1996, Mr Shungloo transferred the property to the trust managed by the appellant, i.e., Arun Shungloo Trust. During the period relevant to the assessment year 2001-02, the appellant Trust sold and transferred the acquired property to a third party. The contention of the Revenue which was accepted by the Tribunal was that appellant was entitled to indexed cost of acquisition for the period on or after 5th January, 1996, i.e., the date on which the appellant-Trust had acquired the property upto the date of sale.

Service Tax

Common input services for manufacture and trading - Pre-Deposit ordered: CESTAT

THE applicant is before the CESTAT with a stay application and relying upon the Order passed in the case of M/s Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. 2011-TIOL-408-CESTAT-Bang submits that since trading activity is not covered under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, the demand is not sustainable.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements