Jurisprudentiol - Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Physician samples - as duty has been paid on MRP basis, abatement cannot be denied - Pre-deposit waived and stay granted: CESTAT

THE applicants are paying duty in respect of physician samples on MRP basis under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and claiming abatement. The Revenue denies the abatement on the ground that abatement given on MRP value on various counts cannot be applied to physician samples as the physical (sic) samples does not go under various stage of price appreciation, since it is not sold.

Income Tax

Whether assessee is entitled to relief u/s 91 even if tax payable is yet to be paid in another country having no DTAA with India - YES: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when the assessee is engaged in providing technical services it is entitled to deduction u/s 80-O; Whether when there is no employer and employee relationship between the assessee and secondment persons, tax deduction u/s 192 is not required; Whether when the tax is payable in another country with which there is no DTAA, the assessee is entitled to relief u/s 91(1) even though tax is yet to be paid and Whether oversight in not filing the cross objection within the stipulated time is a reasonable cause for allowing condonation of delay. And the verdict partly goes in favour of the assessee.

Customs

No proof produced by department to adduce that Order in original was served on appellant in year 1999 - appellant submitting that he had left for Dubai in 1997 and returned only in 2003 and o-in-o was received in year 2011 after which they filed appeal - since order was passed ex parte matter remanded to adjudicating authority: CESTAT

THE appellant is before the CESTAT against an order-an-original passed in the month of January, 1999 by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva. It is submitted that the order was received by them in the year 2011 only and they had filed the instant appeal immediately. The appellant informed the Bench that he had left for Dubai in the year 1997 and had returned to India in the year 2003 and, therefore, he is not aware whether any show-cause notice or notice of hearing was sent to their address or not. In these circumstances, the appellant submitted that the impugned order is required to be set aside and the matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after giving them an opportunity of being heard.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements