Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Whether when Revenue fails to mention block period in notice issued u/s 158BD, even then notice is not unsustainable - YES: HC

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether the notice issued under Sec.158BD of the Income Tax Act is sustainable in law if it does not mention the block period - Whether the provision of Order 18 Rules 5 and 9 Code of Civil Procedure and Section 164 Cr. P.C. can be followed while recording a confessional statement u/s 131 of the Income Tax Act; Whether an order of assessment could be passed merely upon a statement u/s 131 without any corroborative material; Whether a notice issued u/s 158BD of the Income Tax Act is valid if the AO never recorded his satisfaction in the said notice that the alleged undisclosed income belonged to the Assessee and Whether the AO could have issued a notice u/s 158BD of the Act without conducting a search on the assessee u/s 132 of the Act. And the verdict goes in favour of the Revenue.

Service Tax

Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand even in Service Tax cases - CESTAT

CAN the Commissioner (Appeals) remand the case to the original authority in Service Tax cases? Netizens may recall our story reported in case of 2011-TIOL-200-CESTAT-MAD. The Tribunal while dismissing the revenue appeal, held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to remand in service tax cases as the provisions of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not applicable for appeals relating to Service Tax and Commissioner (Appeals) derives power to decide the appeals from Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 which does not preclude the Commissioner (Appeals) from passing a remand order if he thinks fit.

Now, in an identical situation, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the revenue by holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have the power to remand even in service tax matters.

Central Excise

Applicant paying the rent for job worker's unit and taking Cenvat credit - since premises for which rent is paid is not a part of manufacturing unit as per ground plan submitted, prima facie applicant has not made out a case for waiver of duty demanded - Pre-deposit ordered: CESTAT

THE applicants are clearing semi-finished goods to their job worker and after due processing the goods are returned without payment of duty. The applicant paid rent of the premises of job worker and availed credit of the service tax paid.

The jurisdictional authorities objected to this availment on the ground that the job worker premises is not registered with the department as the premises of the manufacturing unit (applicant).

See our columns Monday for the judgements