Jurisprudentiol - Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Amendment of Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 - Time for filing appeal reduced to two months - Whether provision applicable for orders passed prior to May 28, 2012?: No: HC

ORDER was passed by the original authority on March 27, 2012. Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994, was amended reducing time limit for filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) from three months to two months. This provision came into force on 28.05.2012. Petitioner filed appeal after the amendment came into force on 28.05.2012 but within the condonable period of further three months. Authority rejected the appeal as barred by limitation applying the amended provision, which came into force on 28.05.2012.

Income Tax

Whether when assessee receives certain payments after deduction of tax at source and such deduction is deposited in Treasury, assessee can still write off such sum as short receipt merely because it did not receive TDS Certificates from payers - NO: ITAT

THE questions before the Bench are - Whether expenditure incurred on issuance of shares is revenue in nature; Whether when the business of the assessee is continuing, merely writing off of the various security deposits made to Electricity Board, Telecom Department and Customs for issuance of import licence in the books is allowable - Whether when the assessee receives certain payments after deduction of tax at source and such deduction is deposited in the Treasury, the assessee can still write off such sum as short receipt merely because it did not receive TDS Certificates from payers. And the verdict goes against the assessee.

Central Excise

CENVAT - notwithstanding fact that testing has been done in respect of product yet to be manufactured by appellant, it does not disentitle appellant to credit - Prima facie case in favour - Pre-deposit waived and stay granted: CESTAT

THE appellant is a manufacturer of drugs and pharmaceuticals. They have several manufacturing units situated at Aurangabad, Daman, Chikhalthana, Ankleshwar & Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh. They have a research centre at Aurangabad. The appellant undertook certain technical testing and analyzing services abroad and discharged the service tax liability of Rs.12,83,884/- during May 2006 on reverse charge basis.

The said service tax was distributed by the appellant's Head Office at Mumbai to their unit at Daman. Revenue objected to this distribution on the ground that testing and analysing service has been availed in respect of a product yet to be manufactured by the appellant and it is not evident that the product is manufactured at Daman and, therefore, the distribution of credit to Daman unit was not in accordance with the law.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements