Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Excise duty paid erroneously twice on same clearances - Limitation under Section 11 B is not applicable for refund of such excess payment: HC

THE petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of sanitary wares which are excisable goods. Between June 2002 and September 2002, the petitioner cleared goods on payment of duty of Rs 91,129/-. However, due to clerical error, the petitioner paid the same duty again by debiting the PLA. Realizing the double payment, the petitioner filed a refund claim on 01.11.2003 for the excess duty paid. The claim was, however rejected by the department on the ground of time bar under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Income Tax

Whether gift of IMD certificates can be equated with gift of money, even when former is not freely exchangeable and transferable like money - NO: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether the gift of IMD certificates can be equated with gift of money, even when the former is not freely exchangeable and transferable like money; Whether in view of this, section 56(2)(V) & (Vi) can be applied to such gift of IMD certificates and Whether provisions of section 56(2)(V) can be applied to a situation where the IMD certificates have been gifted before September 1, 2004, but proceeds are matured thereafter. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.

Service Tax

Service provided by a visa facilitator in form of assistance to individuals directly, to obtain a visa, does not fall under any of taxable services: CESTAT

THE appellants are engaged in the activity of visa facilitation and providing customer care services to the Diplomatic Mission Embassies/Consulates and the Visa applicants. In furtherance of their activity, they provide facility to the applicants (who seek visa) for filling of application form for visa and submitting the same with the respective Consulates. They also provide lounge services to the persons who have applied for visa and charges for food items and beverages supplied to the visa seekers. The department is of the view that the activity undertaken falls under the category of “Business Auxiliary service” and the appellant is liable to pay service tax.

See our columns Monday for the judgements