Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Tourists only avail facility of ropeway provided by licensee appellant on payment of fees - they cannot be considered beneficiary of any planning, scheduling or arranging of tours since tour to be taxable has to follow its preceding activities enumerated by section 65(115) of FA, 1994 - CESTAT by Majority

THE Appellants have leased a ropeway installed by Municipal Board, Mussoorie at Mall Road, Mussoorie and are engaged in operating it to entertain tourists by carrying tourists from Mall Road to Gun Hill and back to Mall Road. After amendment of section 65 (115) of Finance Act, 1994 to include any means of transport in the definition of tour operator, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Dehradun asked the appellant to deposit service tax on the charges collected by them from the tourists and they paid such tax under protest for the period Oct 2004 to September 2005.

Income Tax

Whether Section 54F benefits are available against capital gains computed as per deeming fiction u/s 50 - NO: ITAT

THE assessee is a Member of Parliament (MP) and a film actor owning M/s. Babbar Visuals. During the A.Y. under consideration, the assessee had sold a plot of land in Lonavala which was purchased in the year 1984. The assessee computed capital gains after deducting indexed cost of acquisition. In the return of income filed with the AO the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act as the sale consideration was applied for construction of residential property. In course of assessment the AO invoked provisions u/s50C and re-computed capital gain as per Stamp duty paid.

Central Excise

Whether job workers could avail credit on raw materials purchased by appellant under actual user conditions has not been considered by Authorities below - matter remanded: CESTAT

THIS is a more than two decade old case and the story goes on...

PROCEEDINGS were initiated against the appellants by a SCN dated 8.6.1989. The allegation in the SCN revolves around the erstwhile rule 57B of the CER, 1944 which allowed a manufacturer to take an enhanced quantum of MODVAT credit of the duty paid in case he had sourced the “inputs” from a SSI manufacturer. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of electric wires and cables and had filed the requisite MODVAT declaration u/r 57G of the CER, 1944 indicating that the inputs are Copper and Aluminium wire rods. The appellants procured the duty paid Inputs under regular gate passes in their own name and sent the same to their job workers by endorsing the original Gate passes in their favour.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements