Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.CST and Rajasthan Sales Tax
Exemption to new industrial units: where Statute contains both General Provision as well as specific provision, latter must prevail: SC
IF in a Statutory Rule or Statutory Notification, there are two expressions used, one in General Terms and the other in special words, under the rules of interpretation, it has to be understood that the special words were not meant to be included in the general expression. Alternatively, it can be said that where a Statute contains both a General Provision as well as specific provision, the later must prevail. It leaves no doubt that what is specific has to be seen in contradistinction with the other items/entries. The provision more specific than the other on the same subject would prevail.
Income Tax
Whether a cricketer who plays for India, is also professional actor if he acts in TV Commercials and is entitled to Sec 80RR benefits - YES: ITAT
THE assessee was working as officer in SBI and was a cricket player who played for the Country. The assessee claimed certain amount received from various cricket tournaments, awards and gifts and man of match awards as exempt in view of Board circular No.447/199/1/86IT(A1) dated 22.01.1986. AO disallowed the claim observing that in case of sportsman who is a professional, awards received by him shall be in the nature of benefit in exercise of his profession and therefore, liable to tax under the Income Tax Act. Assessee contended that he was not a professional cricketer and he was playing for the country under the aegis of BCCI which decided payments to be made to the players by way of fees, logo amount, share of prize money etc., and he had no control over the matches played and amounts received. CIT (A) allowed the claim of assessee stating that he was not a professional. The appeal was only made in respect of man of match award of Rs. 3 lacs.
THE issues before the Bench are - Whether the awards received by the assessee are exempt from income tax as he is not a professional cricketer but playing under the aegis of BCCI which decides the payments to be made to the players; Whether assessee is entitled for expenditure incurred by him for sports accessories, dress, equipment, coaching, training, travel & stay and Whether the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s 80RR considering that even though he is a cricket, the income for acting in T.V. / print media is received by him as a professional actor. And the verdict partly goes in favour of the assessee.
Central Excise
Default in payment of duty under Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Whether CENVAT Credit can be utilized for payment of duty during default – Matter referred to Third Member for deciding pre-deposit.: CESTAT
THIS is a case of default in payment of Central Excise duty. As per Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the assessee is required to pay duty consignment-wise, without utilizing CENVAT Credit during default period. However, the assessee continued to clear the goods by debiting the duty from CENVAT account. Accordingly proceedings were initiated resulting in demand of Rs. 13,39,225/- toward duty along with interest and penalties.
While disposing the stay application, the Member (J) held:
For the purpose of interim stay, we find that the Tribunal has considered the said issue in number of decisions and has held that in case of default in payment of duty in terms of Rule 8, subsequent utilization of Cenvat credit for clearance of goods would result only in confirmation of demand of interest, inasmuch as there would be no Revenue loss. Reference in this regard can be made to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Solar Chemferts Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner as also to a latest decision of Ahmedabad Bench in the case of F.S. Engineers vs. CCE, Ahmedabad (). It stands held by the Tribunal that in case of utilization of credit instead of payment of duty in cash it results in loss to the Revenue only to the extent of interest. To the same effect is the decision of Tribunal in the case of Manipal Springs Ltd. vs. Commissioner ().
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com