Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Refund - Furnishing of cash security equal to 2% of CIF value of goods sought to imported under Project Import - refund claimed of security deposit after finalization of assessment is not hit by unjust enrichment - Appeal allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT

THE appellant filed a Bill of Entry in the month of February, 2004 for import of plate heat exchangers under Project Import. As per the procedure prescribed by the Board vide Circular 89/95-Cus. the bill of entry was to be assessed provisionally on payment of 2% security deposit on project imports and the appellant deposited 2% security deposit amounting to Rs. 1,73,754/- on 12/02/2004. The bill of entry was assessed finally on completion of the project by giving the benefit under Project Imports. The appellant filed a refund claim for refund of 2% security deposit, which they had paid.

Income Tax

Whether activity of welfare of dogs and taking care of sick animals is covered within meaning of 'Charitable purpose under Sec 2(15) - YES: ITAT

ASSESSEE is a trust seeking registration u/s 12A for availing various benefits under the Income Tax Act, 1956. The main objects of the Trust was to help the orphan children, to provide free food to the hungry and poor people and to give medical treatment and food to the animals left in the streets, Food for all combines, conducting Animal Birth Control Program and Anti Rabies Vaccination and to carryout Animal Adoptions Rescue Operations, Humane Education Programmes etc. CIT(A) had rejected the assesee's plea on the ground that, the objects of the trust were not in consonance with sec 2(15), 'charitable purpose'. It had filed appeal to ITAT against the order of CIT(A), for granting registration u/s 12A.

THE issue before the Bench is - Whether welfare of dogs and taking care of sick animals is covered under the meaning of 'Charitable purpose' u/s 2(15). And the answer goes in favour of assessee.

Central Excise

Rule 16 of CER, 2002 - duty paid laboratory equipment returned to the factory are completely dismantled and useable parts are salvaged and again reused in manufacture of same kind and unusable parts are cleared as scrap - department contending that activity does not amount to manufacture and insisting for reversal of CENVAT credit taken, in terms of rule 16(2) of CER, 2002 - Pre-deposit waived and Stay granted: CESTAT

THE appellant are manufacturers of laboratory equipment and they cleared the same on payment of excise duty. On occasions, the equipments cleared to the customers are returned to the factory. In some cases, the equipment brought back are not repairable and, therefore, they are completely dismantled and the useable parts are salvaged and again re-used in the manufacture of goods of the same kind and the unusable parts, which are negligible (approximately 10%) are cleared as scrap. The appellant follows the provisions of rule 16 of the CER, 2002.

See our Columns Monday for the judgements