Jurisprudentiol- Yesterday's SC Judgements

By Vijay Kumar

Central Excise - Rebate - Limitation - the period of one year as amended in Section 11B from 1.5.2000, not applicable to claims already time barred - Supreme Court:

Section 11B was amended w.e.f 12.5.2000 extending the time limit to file a refund claim from six months to one year. In a refund claim filed prior to the amendment, the time limit of six months expired on 20.11.1999 and the claim was filed on 28.12.1999. If the time limit was taken as one year as per the amended provision, the refund claim could be filed till 20.05.2000. Was the refund claim admissible? The Supreme Court says, NO. In this case it was rebate of duty paid on exported goods and the assessee could have cleared the goods without payment of duty, instead of claiming rebate. Then limitation would have been not an issue at all. But the Supreme Court was not impressed and held that the rebate claim was time barred. A grand victory for revenue after 14 years of relentless litigation!.

Service Tax - C&F Agents - 'clearing and forwarding operations' would cover those activities which pertain to clearing of the goods and thereafter forwarding those goods to a particular destination, at the instance and on the directions of the principal:

This interesting case started with an adjudication order by a Superintendent holding that that the services rendered by the appellant would be covered by Section 65(25) of the Act and, therefore, exigible to service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the party's appeal. So did the Tribunal. The Tribunal had followed its own decision in Prabhat Zarda Factory. But Prabhat Zarda Factory was overruled by the Tribunal Larger Bench and Revenue accepted that decision. So does the Supreme Court now.

Customs - Classification - Import of LCD - classifiable under Chapter Heading 9013.80.:

LCDs imported by the appellant were classifiable under Chapter Heading 9013.80. The view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment is unsustainable in law. The appeal is allowed and the orders of the authorities below are set aside.

CE - Classification - eligibility of D.C. Defibrillators for exemption under Notification No.8/96 dated 23.09.1996 and Notification No.4/97 dated 01.03.97 - not eligible

- In this case, an interesting sidelight is that the appellant approached the Supreme Court against the decision of a Third Member of the Tribunal, even before the referral Bench could give its final judgement. So, the question of limitation was open -for the last 11 years and will be decided by the Tribunal now.

These judgements were delivered by the Supreme Court yesterday. We bring them to you today.

Please see Breaking News.