From our Legal Corner – Monday's casesLegal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.

By Vijay Kumar

Income Tax

TDS – No demand on the tax deductor if the deductee has discharged the tax obligation – Supreme Court

You are liable to deduct TDS. By a mistaken understanding, you deduct less TDS than what was required to be deducted. However the deductee pays the correct Income Tax. Can the Department demand the TDS again from you? Logic would say, NO, but logic and tax don't always go together and you need the Supreme Court to tell you that on the same income, you cannot levy tax twice!

Central Excise

Minutes of meeting conducted by Committee of Commissioners cannot constitute an authorisation in terms of Sec 129A(2) of Customs Act - Commissioner himself filing an appeal against an order of Commissioner (A) is bad in law : CESTAT

THINGS are really getting murkier day by day.

It was only last week that we had reported the Tribunal decision that "One Commissioner wearing two hats cannot constitute a Committee" [Coromandel Fertilizers 2007-TIOL-1113-CESTAT-MUM]. No doubt, that was an administrative exigency that warranted the same Commissioner to step into the shoes of his colleague who was the head of the neighbouring Commissionerate, all because the Chief Commissioner ordered so.

Probably, these trivial matters cannot make the Board wake up from its slumber and issue some specific directions in the matter and at the same time take a re-look at its Circular 825/2/2006-CX, dated 06.02.2006 which was already disintegrated by the Tribunal decision in L.G.Balakrishnan & Bros. Ltd. 2007-TIOL-143-CESTAT-MAD.

Exports - refund of Cenvat credit - future prospect of utilisation of credit is not a bar to refund : Tribunal

THE appellants had taken Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs i.e. Grey fabrics used in the manufacture of processed fabrics. The processed fabrics have been exported under Bond. There was accumulation of Cenvat credit for the month of Dec. 03 to April 04, for which the appellants have filed three refund claims under the provision of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Central Excise authorities rejected the same on the ground that the conditions laid under the Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 have not been fulfilled. In the appellants' own case for the period pertaining to October & November 2003, the Tribunal has allowed the refund claim by its Order dated 6-12-2006.

See our columns Monday for the judgements