Jurisprudentiol - Friday's cases
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise
Settlement Commission cannot mechanically interpret s. 32K of CEA, 1944 - Legislature/Parliament would not have perceived eventuality like Tsunami and ban of tobacco by State Government - When those grounds pleaded by petitioner are material, they should be considered - reasoning given by Settlement Commission for denying immunity from interest is erroneous - similarly placed persons were given total immunity and petitioner is also entitled to relief: High Court
THE petitioner is a manufacturer of chewing tobacco and was issued a show cause notice demanding Central Excise duty of Rs.64,08,807/-. An application for settlement was filed and the said application was finally settled by the Commission on 30.09.2005, wherein, the duty was confirmed. Though the benefit of immunity from penalty and prosecution was granted, the interest was levied at the rate of 10% per annum.
Income Tax
Whether when assessee resorts to multiple agreements for sale of each tangible and intangible individual item, they can still be read as a whole, to establish a slump sale u/s 50B - YES: ITAT
THE issues before the Tribunal are - Whether when the entire line of business, including all tangible and intangible assets are sold off as a going concern and on an irrevocable basis, the same amounts to "slump sale" in terms of section 50B; Whether when there are multiple agreements for sale of each individual item, still they can be read as a whole, to establish the sale of "lock, stock and barrels" and Whether merely relying upon provisions of section 2(42C) can serve any purpose, when there is no valuation report required in terms of section 50B, for supporting the claim of itemised sale. And the verdict goes in favour of the Revenue.
Customs
Notfn. 10 - SCN or adjudication order does not bring out legal provisions contravened or undue benefit claimed - It only states that there were mis-declarations of model number and year of make, of machines - allegation that applicants wanted to avail TUF Scheme is baseless as under that scheme only new machines could be imported and applicants had declared machines to be old - as the appellants have executed bonds supported by bank guarantee at time of provisional release, pre-deposit waived and Stay granted: CESTAT
THE applicants (40 of them) imported textile machines (125 machines in all) during the year 2009 and claimed benefit of Notification No. 10 3/2009-Cus. dated 11.9.2009. After clearance, the officers of Revenue received intelligence that the model number and year of manufacture declared at the time of clearance were false. So they conducted examination of the goods at different sites where machines were installed and found that there had been a manipulation of the model number and year of make embossed on the machines. Inasmuch as although the year of manufacture was 1995-1996 the applicants had declared model numbers of the year 2000.
Service Tax
Applicant manufacturing liquid gases and supplying the same to customers in cryogenic tanks installed by them at customer's premises - Leasing out of Storage tanks prima facie does not fall under the category of "Storage and Warehousing" services - case made out for 100% waiver of pre-deposit - Pre-deposit waived and stay granted: CESTAT
Prima facie, the leasing out of the storage tanks does not fall under the category of ‘Storage and Warehousing Services'. Therefore, the applicant has made out a case for 100% waiver of pre-deposit. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit of the service tax, interest and penalties waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a Nice Day
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com