Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise
Interest on differential duty paid due to price escalation - Issue covered by Supreme Court decision in case of SKF India Ltd - No reason to take different view by following Karnataka High Court decision in BHEL case: HC.
THE issue is whether the assessee is liable to pay interest on differential duty paid on supplementary invoices due to price escalation. The assessee is in appeal before the High Court against the order of Tribunal confirming the demand by following the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in case of SKF India Ltd - 2009-TIOL-82-SC-CX.
The assessee tried to distinguish the ratio of SKF India Ltd and relied on the decision of Karnataka High Court in case of BHEL Ltd - which is in favour of the assessee.
Income Tax
Whether when Revenue has failed to establish that business was so arranged that more profit could be attributed to eligible unit, even then benefit of Sec 80IA can be denied - NO: HC
THE assessee company set up a new unit for manufacture and sale of Lamination tordials cores and transformers. It was claimed by the assessee that said unit was located in industrially backward area therefore the profits and gains of the said unit were eligible for 100% deduction u/s 80IA. For the purpose, the component of income included the interest income earned by the assessee company on account of charge of overdue interest from customers to whom sales were executed from new unit on account of late payment of their dues and also towards bank interest. The total claim for the deduction u/s 80 IA was at Rs. 65,24,023/-, but the A.O. allowed partial deduction of Rs. 25,93,772/-. The remaining amount was disallowed by the A.O. and the same was upheld by the CIT(A). However, the Tribunal allowed entire claim of the assessee.
THE issue before the Bench is - Whether when the assessee maintains separate books for its unit located in backward area and the Revenue has failed to establish that business was so arranged that more profit could be attributed to the eligible unit, even then benefit of Sec 80IA can be denied. And the answer goes in favour of the assessee.
Customs
Notfn. 64/88-Cus - It is settled position in law that it is for person who is claiming benefit of exemption Notification to lead evidence to show that he is entitled for the same - Appellant has completely failed in this regard: CESTAT
THE appellant imported between March and August 1991 medical equipment claiming the benefit of Notification 64/88-Cus dated 01/03/1998 on the strength of a Customs Duty Exemption Certificate issued by the Director General of Health Services.
The conditions mentioned in the certificate were - (i) the appellant undertakes to give free treatment, on an average, to at least 40% of the outdoor patients; (ii) to give free treatment to all indoor patients belonging to families with an income less than Rs. 500/- per month, and to keep for this purpose, at least 10% of all the hospital beds reserved for such patients and to give free treatment at charges either on the basis of income of the patients concerned or otherwise to patients other than those specified above.
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in