Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

If the provisions of statute are not ambiguous, notings in files of Government are not relevant, as statute has to interpreted in terms of the language used therein - interpretation of Drawback Schedule has to be made in terms of language used therein and not based on interpretation given in files of Ministry on appellant's representation: CESTAT

THE appellant, a manufacturer of automobile parts, had filed 137 Drawback Shipping Bills during the period March, 2003 to May, 2003 for export of goods described as,- (1) alloy steel forging, machined, manufactured through forging process; and (2) non-alloy steel forging, machined and manufactured through forging process, claiming drawback on these goods under sub-serial Nos. 73.30 and 73.29 of the drawback schedule at the rates specified under claim for all-industry rate of drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Income Tax

Whether unconditional grant received from non-resident holding company for protecting image and goodwill is taxable as business receipt - NO: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether voluntary and unconditional grant received by the assessee for protecting image and goodwill of the holding company is taxable as business receipt - Whether the claim of depreciation is mandatory in nature; Whether software development product expenses is allowable as revenue expenditure u/s. 37(1); Whether the assessee is entitled to prepare a separate profit and loss account for the purpose of section 115JA of the Act, so far as it is in accordance with provisions of part II & Part II of Schedule VI of the Companies Act 1956 and Whether transfer made to debenture redemption reserve can be said to be a provision for ascertained liability and hence could not be added back while computing the book profit u/s 115JA. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.

Central Excise

Premises on which rent has been paid is not registered with Central Excise department - CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on rental charges not available - Pre-deposit ordered: CESTAT

FROM the record, it is found that the premises on which the rent has been paid is not registered with Central Excise Department. In view of the fact that the premises on which the rent and Service Tax has been paid is not registered with the Revenue's authority as a manufacturing unit, therefore, there is merit in the contention of the Revenue that the applicant had wrongly availed the credit on Service Tax paid on rental charges.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements