Jurisprudentiol - Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Anti dumping duty on Cold Rolled Flat Products imposed vide Notification No 14/2010 Cus - ADD is not applicable for products having width more than 1250 mm - Corrigendum dated 07.02.2012 to Notification cannot be applied to imports made prior to 07.02.2012: CESTAT

THE appellant was regular importer of the Stainless Steel Cold Rolled Coils. The said products were imported by the appellant during the period 2009-12 and appropriate customs duty was discharged. All the Bills of Entry during the relevant period were finally assessed by the lower Authorities after physical examination of the goods. Government of India on an application made by the domestic industries, initiated an investigation for imposition of anti dumping duty on Cold Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel and definitive anti dumping duty were imposed by Notification No. 14/2010-customs dtd. 20, Feb., 2010. Subsequently, after initiating a midterm review, the designated authority issued corrigendum which was notified by Notification No. 86/2011-Customs wherein the scope of the subject goods was expanded as also extending the tolerance limit of the products under consideration on which anti-dumping duty was imposed.

Income Tax

Whether any payment made towards acquisition of new residential house by way of advance payment towards booking or by paying instalments has to be treated as investment towards purchase or construction of a new house - YES: ITAT

THE assessee, as an individual, derives his income from long term capital gain and from other sources. For A.Y. 2009-10, he filed his return of income (RIICO) declaring income. The assessee had derived income from other sources, from long term capital and from of interest. During the relevant period, the Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd. (in short, 'RIC') acquired land owned by the assessee jointly with other members of his family. The assessee claimed exemption under section 54F. The Assessing Officer called for the complete details regarding this claim. In his reply, assessee stated that he had utilized an amount in terms of section 54F of the Act. He had deposited certain amount under capital gain account scheme opened with the Bank of Baroda and an amount was utilized in purchasing residential flat. The assessee also claimed further expenditure given to the Interior Designer towards supervision and interior decoration. After receipt of this reply, the Assessing Officer sought clarification from the assessee as to how section 54F of the Act applied to this case and why he should allow this exemption.

The issues before the Bench are - Whether in the absence of completion and possession by way of registration and transfer of its title of flats booked by the assessee on the date of transfer of original capital asset, the income from House Property could be assessed and Whether any payment made towards acquisition of a new residential house by way of making payment in advance even by booking or by paying instalments within the prescribed has to be treated as investment towards purchase/construction of a new house. And the verdict goes in favour of the Revenue.

Central Excise

CENVAT - appellant cannot be both 'manufacturer' and 'service provider' at same time in relation to particular activity - Credit taken on input services for job work activity cannot be denied: CESTAT

THE appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Chips, Lump Waste, and Polymer Waste [Ch. 39] and availing CENVAT. The appellant also manufactured Polyester Chips on job work basis out of raw materials received from their own factory, located at Athola, Silvassa and sent back the same to their Athola factory without payment of central excise duty in terms of Notf. No. 214/ 86-CE dated 25.03.1986.

The Department entertained a view that the CENVAT Credit of service tax paid on input services, used by the appellant in the manufacture of goods on job work basis, exempted under Notf. No. 214/86-CE was not admissible to the appellant in terms of the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the CCR, 2004.

See our Columns Monday for the judgements