Jurisprudentiol - Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Having granted full waiver of pre-deposit while deciding Stay application, Tribunal in absence of any special circumstances ought not to have ordered pre-deposit while remanding matter to Commissioner (A): HC

BY an order dated 18/3/2004, the Tribunal by following its decision in the case of Vijayata Audio World and Ors. dated 22/9/2000 - 2002-TIOL-484-CESTAT-MUM waived the pre-deposit. Subsequently, the Tribunal vide its order dated 01/3/2011 set aside the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the matter to the file of Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to pass fresh order on merits as the issue was highly debatable and highly arguable. However, the Tribunal further directed that the order of the Tribunal in restoring the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) shall be subject to the condition that the assessee shall deposit 50% of the amount involved within the time stipulated therein.

Income Tax

Whether when assessee receives payments on sale of property in parts, piecemeal deposits of same under capital gains scheme disentitles assessee from Sec 54EC benefits - NO, rules ITAT

ASSESSEE is an individual. He filed his ROI claiming exemption under section 54EC. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings examined the issue of exemption and allowed the claim of the assessee. The CIT exercising his power u/s 263 revised the order of AO and directed him to frame the assessment once again and also observed that the assessee had invested the amount in capital gain scheme in scattered manner which meant some amount invested by the assessee when he received part payment and the balance on the receipt of balance payment. The CIT was of the view that assessee ought to have deposited the entire amount in capital gain scheme and hence the order of the AO allowing the exemption in relation to piece meal investments was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The AO following the direction of CIT (A) disallowed the claim of the assessee. CIT (A) affirmed the order of AO.

Customs

Customs Notification 21/2002-Cus does not provide any condition that benefit is available subject to provisions of Exim Policy - prima facie benefit of notfn. 6/2006-CE cannot be denied: CESTAT

IT was only a week ago that we reported the CESTAT decision in the case of Crompton Greaves Ltd. (2012-TIOL-574-CESTAT-Mum) where the Bench while waiving pre-deposit of Rs. 3.95 Crores and granting stay held that prima facie benefit of Notification 6/2006-CE in respect of goods supplied against International Competitive Bidding cannot be denied by invoking provisions of the EXIM policy. In the present case also, the Revenue authorities have denied the benefit of notification 6/2006-CE in respect Water Cooler chiller cleared to Koderma & Durgapur Thermal Power Station set up by Damodar Valley Corporation under international competitive bidding through M/s. ABB Ltd.

See our columns Monday for the judgements