Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Assistant Director, CEI, has no locus standi to challenge order of Settlement Commission: Adjudication or settlement - Minority decision upheld: HC

SETTLEMENT or Adjudication?: a case involving complexity of issues both of facts and law and disputed questions of fact for which detailed enquiry is necessary ought to be referred to the adjudicating officer by the Settlement Commission, to be taken up from the stage at which the matter was before the adjudicating officer, which is before the filing of applications before the Settlement Commission.

Income Tax

Whether in case manufacturing activity is performed by third party, assessee can claim deduction u/s 80I in respect of such manufactured items: HC

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether service charges received from Department of Atomic Energy can be considered as profit derived from the industrial undertaking to qualify for deduction u/s 80I; Whether crane hire charges would also be covered under equipment hire charges; Whether transportation activities can be a part of manufacturing process, hence eligible for deduction u/s 80I and Whether in case manufacturing activity is performed by a third party, assessee can claim deduction u/s 80I in respect of such manufactured items also. And the answers to all the questions go against the Revenue.

Customs

Refund of SAD - there is mismatch between goods imported and that sold in domestic market - no documentary evidence in support that goods sold on payment of VAT in domestic market are same as those imported - refund rightly denied - Appeal dismissed: CESTAT

THE appellant imported "Assorted Thickness Cold Rolled Steel Coils" of size viz.0.60mm, 1.0mm, 1.8mm and 2.0mm by paying Customs duty including SAD.

There after, they filed a refund claim towards the SAD paid of Rs.11,98,080/-. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs on the ground that as per the invoices produced by the appellant the goods sold in the domestic market did not match with the imported goods. The lower appellate authority also came to the conclusion that the goods on which VAT has been paid do not match in description with the goods imported and, therefore, the appellant has not satisfied the department that goods sold and goods imported are one of the same and VAT liability has been discharged on the goods imported.

See our Columns Monday for the judgements