Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Appellant absent in hearing - Requests for remand without pre-deposit as an earlier remand is pending with Commissioner - Pre-deposit of Rs. Six Crore ordered: CESTAT

THE appellants had requested that the matter may be kept pending till the original adjudicating authority passes an order in a similar matter remanded by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 25372 dated 29.05.2013. The Tribunal was unable to appreciate the logic behind this request. It is also not known as to the reasons for delay in adjudication of the remanded matter.

As an alternative prayer appellant has requested that the matter may be remanded without insisting on a pre-deposit. Since Tribunal had already considered the issue earlier and considered it appropriate that appellant should deposit roughly 50% of the amount demanded, Tribunal did not see any reason why it should change the norms and pass a different order.

Income Tax

Whether if Revenue declines to grant exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi), such denial automatically leads to refusal of registration u/s 12AA - NO: HC

THE assessee is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act since 1991. It was also registered u/s 12A and claimed exemption u/s 10 (23C) (vi) on the income for the AYs 2004-05 to 2006-07 & 2007-08 to 2009-10 on the ground that the Society was imparting education. The said claim had been rejected by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad vide order dated 25.3.2008. Against the said order, Writ Petition No. 1210 of 2009 had been rejected and the order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad had become final.

THE issues before the bench are - Whether if the exemption under Section 10 (23C)(vi) is declined, it would amount to refusal of registration under Section 12AA and Whether registration u/s 12A can be denied without recording the reasons for satisfaction that the activities of assessee are not genuine or are not being carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust or the institution. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.

Central Excise

Imported cosmetics before being cleared into DTA are labeled/relabeled and affixed with MRP - appellant discharging CVD on MRP - CCE demanding CE duty alleging manufacture - appellant contention that entire exercise is revenue neutral not looked into by adjudicating authority - matter remanded: CESTAT

IT is their fortune that the new provisions of section 35F of CEA, 1944 are yet to see the light of the day. Else they would have been required to make a total pre-deposit of almost Rs.4crores for their appeals to be heard by the CESTAT.

And now the appeals were allowed by way of remand without pre-deposit and the Bench also directed the Registry to mark a copy of the order to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, the reason - for issue of necessary directions in this regard so that avoidable litigation need not be perpetuated without any gain for anybody.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements