Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Manpower services rendered to various shipping companies - argument that after 1.5.2006, there is specific service namely "Ship Management Service" which covers supply of crew for ships and, therefore, activity is liable to be taxed only on or after 1.5.2006 does not stand to any logic or reason: CESTAT

IT was noticed that the appellants are rendering manpower supply services to various shipping companies and are in receipt of sums of money towards the wages/salaries of the officers and crew members so supplied in addition to service charges for the service rendered. The department was of the view that the service undertaken by the appellants is liable to be taxed under the category of "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service" for the period prior to 01.05.2006 and under the category of "Ship Management Services" w.e.f 01.05.2006.

Income Tax

Whether interest paid on delayed payment of Custom duty is in nature of duty only and such payment is allowable deduction - YES: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether expenses other than the one related to maintaining of the corporate identity of the company can be allowed when the assessee had closed down the business; Whether interest paid on delayed payment of Custom duty is in the nature of duty only and such payment is allowable and Whether any expenditure incurred in relation to a new project which is ultimately abandoned, is to be construed as capital in nature. And the verdict goes against the assessee.

Customs

Respondents importing two paintings of Euro 20000 each, one titled "Bindu" and another titled "Rajasthan" but failing to mention second painting in the B/E - after order of first check was given but before examination was done, importer seeking amendment in B/E - whether s. 149 covers such mistakes - mensrea is not relevant for liability to confiscation and penalty: CESTAT by majority

AMENDMENT of Bill of Entry was rightly rejected by assessing authority finding deliberate mis-declaration and exercised his judicious discretion when intent to evade manifested. Attempt to declare only one painting was there. Mere fact that they have sent the amount through banking channels for payment to foreign seller prior to filing of bill of entry does not mean that the appellants has not violated law. There was no bona fide mistake since facts were within exclusive and conscious knowledge of Respondent.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements