Jurisprudentiol - Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Port Services - supply of fresh water by barge and bunker to vessels is part of port services - it is not simple transaction of sale of water - from invoice it is quite clear that it is not cost of water alone that is charged, but it includes other elements - appellants have not made prima facie case in favour - Pre-deposit ordered of Rs.3.5 Crores: CESTAT

ALLOWING another person to use the goods without giving legal right or possession and effective control is treated as service. In this case, what is evident is that the boat/barges have been supplied as seen from invoice. Since no Sales Tax has been paid and no evidence has been shown that the transaction is a transaction of right to use and was liable to sale tax, the natural conclusion would be that the transaction is supply of tangible goods for use without parting with the right of possession and control. While the appellants have made a claim that the expenses incurred by them on fuel has not been proved to be incurred for the boats and barges supplied to customers, they have also not shown that they had other barges and boats and the expenses incurred were in relation to other items and not to the boats/barges supplied. In the absence of any agreement, the only document available is invoices and invoices do not support the claim of the appellant.

Income Tax

I-T - Whether when summons are issued to share allottees and they fail to respond to such notices, onus shifts back on assessee who becomes liable to addition u/s 68 - YES: Delhi HC

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when the summons u/s 131 are issued to share allottees and they fail to respond to such notices, the onus shifts back on the assessee who becomes liable to addition u/s 68 and Whether the concept of 'shifting onus' means that after assessee provides certain details about the share allotees and the assessee's duty gets over. And the Revenue's appeal is upheld.

Central Excise

Clearance of inputs to sister unit without raising any invoice or reversing CENVAT credit is clear violation of CCR, 2004 - there was an intention to evade payment of duty on part of appellant - Penalties rightly confirmed by Commissioner(A) - Appeals dismissed: CESTAT

THE appellants have cleared the input as such without raising any invoices for such clearance and they have neither paid the duty nor reversed the CENVAT Credit. If the said issue was not noticed by the Revenue, the appellants would have continued to clear the inputs to their sister unit without payment of duty. Therefore, the appellants have clearly violated the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules and accordingly, liable to penalty under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements