Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

For purpose of valuation under rule 8 of Valuation Rules, cost of production is required to be taken and this cannot be equated to conversion charges charged by appellants in respect of goods manufactured on job work - Demand of Rs.1.18 Crores set aside and appeal allowed: CESTAT

THE appellant is manufacturing wire rods from billets. During the course of audit, it was noticed that the appellants were undervaluing the wire rods cleared to their own units at Tarapur and Borivali. On being asked by the department, the appellant furnished the debit notes and invoices for conversion charges billed to TISCO, Jamshedpur, vide their letter dated 09.06.2003. On further query by the Department as to how they had arrived at the value for clearances of wire rods to their own units, the assessee vide their letter dt. 25.06.2003, submitted a statement of cost of production for transfer price of wire rods to their units at Tarapur and Borivali.

Income Tax

Whetherfor purpose of filing appeal before High Court, it is fair on part of Revenue to club tax effect of two appeals relating to same year to meet guidelines prescribed by CBDT - NO: Gujarat High Court

The assessee, at the outset, raised a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the Appeals on the ground that according to the Standing Instruction No. 5 of 2008 issued by the CBDT, the Revenue should not have preferred these Appeals as the tax-effect in the Tax Appeal No. 1847 of 2010 is less than Rs. 4.00 Lac. The Revenue, on the other hand, opposed the above contention by contending that if the total tax-effect of these two Appeals is taken into consideration, it would exceed Rs. 4.00 Lac. According to the Revenue, the total tax-effect involved in these two appeals should be considered for the purpose of the above Standing Instruction, because, by the common order, the Tribunal disposed of both the appeal and Cross-Objection.

Customs

Exemption Notification No. 64/88-Cus - Fulfillment of conditions - Continuous obligation of hospital - Whether exemption notification calls for consideration of ground realities pragmatically to make that workable? - Matter referred to President to resolve difference of views between Member (T) and Member (J)

THE Appellant, are a super specialty hospital in New Delhi. They, during 1989 to 1993 period, imported 85 consignments of various medical equipments free of duty under Notification No.64/88-Cus dated 1.3.88. Notification No.64/88-Cus exempted from the whole of the customs duty leviable under first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Additional Customs duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 subject to the conditions specified in it.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements