Jurisprudentiol - Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

MRP Valuation - s.4A of CEA, 1944 - there is no nexus between declaration of retail sale price and prices at which goods are sold to institutional customers - Pre-deposit ordered: CESTAT

THE appellant is a manufacturer of packaged drinking water which commodity is notified for assessment u/s 4A of the CEA, 1944 i.e. on MRP basis. The case against the appellant is that the appellant adopted an MRP of Rs. 30/- for the period prior to 20th July 2011, Rs.35/- as MRP for the period 31/07/2011 and MRP of Rs.50/- for the period 01/08/2011 onwards, so as to be within the purview of exemption limit of Rs.1.5crore available to small scale manufacturers of excisable goods.

Income Tax

Whether Revenue is under obligation to allow TDS Credit even if deductors have not issued TDS Certificates nor properly uploaded details in Form 26AS - YES: ITAT

ASSESSEE, a company, had claimed TDS of Rs. 215163912, out of which claim of Rs. 1,65,20,93,44/- was made in the original return and further claim of Rs.14,271,296 was made in the revised return filed on 13.4.2009. Thereafter during assessment, assessee had made further claim of Rs. 35,683,272/- vide letter dated 28.12.2010. AO however gave TDS credit only to the tune of Rs 118,960,393/-. On appeal, CIT(A) directed the assessee to furnish all TDS certificates in original before AO, who was directed to verify the claim of credit of TDS and to allow TDS as per original challans available on record or as per details of such TDS available on computer system of the department.

The issue before the Bench is - Whether Revenue is under obligation to allow TDS Credit even if deductors have not issued TDS Certificates nor properly uploaded details in Form 26AS. And the verdict goes in favour of the assessee.

Service Tax

Appellants are not having any tourist bus hence are not covered under scope of 'Tour Operator Service': CESTAT

THE appellants are not having any tourist bus. The appellants are giving only cabs. Therefore, the appellants are not covered under the scope of tour operator service. In view of this, the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of Notification 39/97-ST which covers only tour operator service. As the appellants are providing rent-a-cab service, therefore no infirmity in the impugned order whereby the demand is confirmed. In respect of penalty, as the appellants are registered as a provider of tour operator and paying tax accordingly and also filing statutory returns, therefore as per the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, it is not a case for imposition of any penalties.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements