Jurisprudentiol - Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Legal consultancy service for obtaining patent rights abroad - better classified and more specifically covered by Legal Consultancy Service -No Extended period when CENVAT Credit is entitled to: CESTAT

ON going through the activities undertaken which is basically in the nature of applying for patent and through the relevant documentation work etc. and the details as provided by the Commissioner, Tribunal considered that the activities can be better classified and more specifically covered by Legal Consultancy Service.

The appellant would be entitled to CENVAT credit of the entire tax paid and therefore extended period may not be invokable in this case at all. As regards the amount within the normal period, the situation would be revenue-neutral since the appellant would be entitled to CENVAT credit of the tax paid.

Income Tax

Whether when assessee files estimate of income showing NIL advance tax liability on basis of loss returns of previous years it attracts penal provisions of Sec 273(2)(c) - NO: HC

THE appellant is a Public Limited Company, engaged in the manufacture and sale of synthetics yarn & cement. It was following calendar year, as the accounting period. For the AY 1982-83, assessee had closed its accounts on 31.12.1981. The assessee was supposed to submit the estimate u/s 209A for the purposes of payment of advance tax on 15.6.1981, 15.9.1981 and 15.12.1981. The assessee had filed an estimate on 9.6.1981 showing the advance tax liability at nil.

The issue before the Bench is - Whether when assessee files estimate of income showing NIL advance tax liability on basis of loss returns of previous years it attracts penal provisions of Sec 273(2)(c). NO, says the High Court.

Central Excise

Credit availed without receiving capital goods - Assets register seems to be manipulated/cooked up one and cannot be accepted as reliable piece of evidence to substantiate appellant claim that they had received capital goods but had removed the same later - Pre-deposit ordered: CESTAT

THE appellant was denied CENVAT credit of Rs.20,94,889/- on the ground that capital goods on which the credit had been taken were neither found to be received in the factory nor reflected in the IT returns in Form 3CD and the balance sheet. The absence of capital goods was noticed during the audit of the records of the appellant in August/September 2008 and also during the search of the premises conducted by the department on 06/03/2012 under a panchnama.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements