Jurisprudentiol - Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

CENVAT Credit - Input Services - The definition of input service is worded in broad manner so as to bring within its ambit services availed by provider of taxable service, whether directly or indirectly - Adjudicating Authority dealt with issue in cavalier and irresponsible way.: CESTAT

THE definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is worded in a broad manner so as to bring within its ambit services availed by a provider of taxable service, whether directly or indirectly, and also enumerates some of the services which fall within the purview of the input service.

In the present case, the appellant has, clearly and in detail, explained the nexus between the input service on which credit was taken and the output service provided. Instead of examining the claim of the appellant and rebuting the same, if required, the adjudicating authority has dealt with the issue in a cavalier and irresponsible way. This not what is expected of an adjudicating authority.

Income Tax

Income tax - Whether when municipal authorities collect licence fees for putting up hoardings either on municipal land or private land, such receipt is to be treated as business income as per provisions of Sec 28 - NO: HC

THE issue before the Bench is - Whether when municipal authorities collect licence fees for putting up hoardings either on municipal land or private land, such receipt is to be treated as business income as per provisions of Sec 28. And the answer goes against the Revenue.

Customs

Pre-deposit - Sorry state of affairs in Tribunal - it is most unfortunate that Tribunal did not wait for admission hearing of appeal by High Court: HC

THE Tribunal vide its order dated 29 October 2013 directed the appellant to deposit an amount equal to 50% of the duty confirmed (i.e. 50% of Rs. 41,48,337/-) and penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/. The Tribunal further directed appellant no.2 to deposit penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- out of the penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Against this order of pre-deposit, the appellants are before the High Court.

Incidentally, the appeal filed on 27th December 2013 was listed for hearing on 20th January, 2014 but could not be taken up for admission and was adjourned. This fact was informed by the appellant to the Registrar of the Tribunal with a request that the matter listed for compliance on 21st January be adjourned to any other date after 4th February as convenient to the Tribunal. However, although this fact was informed on the date of hearing, the Tribunal did not grant any adjournment and dismissed the appeal for non-compliance on 21 January 2014 itself.

See our Columns Tuesday for the judgements