Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.
Jurisprudentiol - Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Very fact that matter had been referred to Larger Bench would show that two views were possible - suppression stands attributed to appellant on ground that they have drafted agreement in a complicated manner with a view to evade service tax - against adjudged dues of more than three crores, pre-deposit ordered of Rs.25 lakhs: CESTAT by Majority

GUJARAT Maritime Board is a provider of port service. The appellant entered into an agreement with M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement for construction of two captive jetties. The cost of construction was to be initially borne by M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement and expenditure incurred for construction of said 2 jetties was to be adjusted against the wharfage charges by way of rebate/ concession till the capital cost is recovered. Such rebate/concession in the wharfage charges for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2007 amounted to Rs.24,71,61,887/-. In addition, the appellant also collected lease rent for water front charges and leave way facility compensation amounting to Rs.1.25 crore during the same period.

On the ground that the "waterfront royalty and way leave facility compensation" are includible in the value of taxable “port” service, a demand of service tax of Rs.2.62 crores was confirmed along with imposition of an equal penalty.

Income Tax

Whether assessee can escape from rigour of penalty by merely disowning his representative alleged of tampering with TDS certificates for reducing assessee's taxable receipt - NO: HC

THE AO found that there was considerable discrepancy in the return of Income as filed by the assessee and income as disclosed as business income from the activity of Civil Contract, whereas the payments received by the assessee as indicated by the client for whose benefit the assessee had executed Civil works and who had deducted tax at source indicated a much larger quantum of receipts. The AO realized that for the purpose of filing of the return of income the assessee had tampered with the TDS certificate which had been issued by the person deducting tax at source and given to the assessee. While producing the certificate with the return the figures relating to the actual payment had been tampered and reduced as indicated above. The AO was of the opinion that the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) were attracted and therefore, proceeded to levy penalty. The CIT(A) and Tribunal affirmed the penalty.

Central Excise

Whether credit of duty paid on inputs 'end shields' and 'stator housings' is available to assessee as these inputs were exclusively used in manufacture of exempted final products particularly when assessee has paid 8%/10% of price of exempted final products - Matter remanded: CESTAT

THE assessee is manufacturer of motors and generators falling under Heading No.8501 and availing CENVAT Credit in respect of inputs. Windmill Generators manufactured by them are exempted in terms of Notification No.6/2000-CE dated 1.3.2000 being a non-conventional energy device. The assessee, at the time of clearance of the goods, paid an amount equivalent to 8%/10% of the total price of the exempted final product as envisaged under Rule 57AD(1) of the Central Excise Rules,1944 read with Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules.

See our columns Monday for the judgements