Jurisprudentiol - Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

CENVAT - Retrospective amendment of Rule 6 of CCR, 2004 - Common input services used for dutiable and exempted final products - since appellant did not reverse proportionate CENVAT credit within six months of enactment of Finance Act, 2010, they cannot claim benefit of retrospective legislation: CESTAT

THIS Tribunal being a creation of the statute cannot over look or condone the time limits specified in the statute. Inasmuch as the time limit expired in November 2010 itself and the appellant herein did not comply with the conditions stipulated therein, held that the order passed by the lower authorities cannot be faulted. The only relief that can be given to the appellant is with regard to the penalties imposed.

Income Tax

Whether when assessee receives shares as corpus donation and sells same to realise funds, it loses entitlement to exemption u/s 11 because shares were sold without prior permission of DIT (Exemption) - NO: ITAT

ASSESSEE is a notified trust u/s 80G and is registered u/s 12A. AO observed that the assessee had received shares of ‘M' and ‘S' through ‘E' Trust and transferred to corpus fund. Total market value of the shares was Rs. 8.47 crores. Assessee sold part of the shares and the amount received was credited to balance sheet as corpus fund. AO asked assessee to explain why the market value of shares on the date of donation should not be considered as taxable u/s 2(24) as income in view of violation of section 11 and 13(1)(d) of the Act after receiving shares from a charitable trust. The issue before the Bench is - Whether when assessee receives shares as corpus donation and sells the same to realise the funds, it loses entitlement to exemption u/s 11 because shares were sold without prior permission of DIT (Exemption). NO is the Tribunal's answer.

Customs

CHALR, 2004 - Stamp paper purchased by CHA in his name for execution of High Sea Sales agreement - allegation that since as per Stamp Act, stamp paper ought to have been purchased in the name of parties to the contract and hence they are fabricated and, therefore, this act is in violation of CHALR, 2004 is misplaced: CESTAT

THE High Sea Sales agreement at the time of clearance was examined by the officers who cleared the goods and there is no allegation that the said agreement is fabricated one entered by the parties to the contract. Further, the High Sea Sales agreement have been executed prior to imports, therefore, proceedings under CHALR 2004 cannot be initiated for this act of the appellant.

See our columns Monday for the judgements