Jurisprudentiol - Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Notification imposing provisional anti-dumping duty expired before date of issuance of final anti-dumping notification - interregnum period - Under provisions of Rule 20(2) of Anti Dumping Duty Rules, Government has power to impose final anti dumping duty from date of imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty - Appeal dismissed: CESTAT

HON'BLE High Court of Bombay and Hon'ble High Court of Kerala have held that under provisions of Rule 20(2) of Anti Dumping Duty Rules, the Government has the power to impose final anti dumping duty from the date of imposition of the provisional anti dumping duty.

Income Tax

Whether salary income of individual assessee, which was subjected to TDS by employer, can be dubbed as 'undisclosed income' if no return or delayed return is filed - NO: HC

THE assessee was assessed to tax as an individual. He was subjected to search and seizure operations. He was served with a notice u/s 158BC for the block period. He filed a return declaring total undisclosed income at Rs 50,000/-. While processing such return, the AO dealt with several different issues. The AO was of the opinion that since in case of three A.Y's i.e. 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89, the assessee had filed no return and for the A.Y's 1994-95 and 1995-96, the assessee had filed returns after the last date for filing regular returns, such income disclosed in the returns filed late cannot be adjusted in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 158BB. The Tribunal was of the opinion that such income for the relevant A.Y'S cannot be considered as undisclosed income of the assessee. The Tribunal was of the opinion that section 158BB prescribes the method of computing the undisclosed income of a block period, however, before making any such computation, the existence of undisclosed income must be shown.

Service Tax

A one sentence order that appellant's claim is an afterthought is not sufficient - Commissioner (A) should have examined contract, nature of service received and given reasons as to why service cannot be classified as IPR service - Since matter has not received attention it deserves, remand ordered: CESTAT

ON going through the impugned order and hearing the submissions it is found that the Commissioner has simply rejected the claim of the appellant for reclassification of service by observing that the service received by them is consulting engineering service only and this is based on a perusal of the services received by the appellant according to the impugned order. This one sentence is not sufficient.

Central Excise

Inclusion of PDI and free after sales services charges incurred by dealer during warranty period in Assessable value is contrary to provisions of Section 4(3)(d) of Central Excise Act: HC

AS per Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the PDI and free after sales services charges can be included in the transaction value only when they are charged by the assessee to the buyer. The impugned circulars, inter alia, purport to hold that where the assessee sells the motor vehicles to a dealer (buyer) at a given price and the dealer in turn sells the said motor vehicles to a customer at a price with dealers margin which includes the PDI charges and after sales service charges, then, the assessable value for determining the Central Excise duty payable by the assessee has to be determined by including the PDI and after sales service charges even if they are not been charged by the assessee to the dealer, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and, hence, liable to be quashed and set aside.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements