Jurispruden tiol - Monday's cases Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.
Central Excise
Appeals - condonation of delay - Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay beyond 30 days : Supreme Court
THE issue before the Supreme Court was the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay beyond 30 days for filing appeals.
The Commissioner had dismissed the appeal only on the ground that it was filed after 21 months of the date of service of the original order and the appellate authority did not have power to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days from the date of expiry of period of 60 days prescribed for filing the statutory appeal.
The CESTAT took the same view and so did the High Court and the appellant is in the Supreme Court.
Service Tax
GTA Service - Cenvat Credit - It is convention that when matter is referred to Larger Bench, Stay of recovery of amount is granted and there is no reason to deviate from such convention : Tribunal
IN the case of India Cements Ltd. [ ], the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the transportation from the factory to the destination of the buyer becomes an 'outward transportation' & accordingly in terms of Rule 2(1)(ii) [First limb], this service becomes an 'Input Service' meaning to say that credit was available. However, since this view was at variance with the interpretation carried by the co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cement [ ], the matter was referred to the Larger Bench for resolving the issue.
Probably, the assessee Inox Air Products [ ], whose case we had reported earlier, were unfortunate when their appeal, on a similar issue, had come before the WZB because they were ordered to make a pre-deposit of Rs 1,25,000/-. This despite the fact that the Tribunal has in the case of Capital Paper Mills [ ] held that when the matter is sub judice before the Larger Bench, waiver of pre-deposit of duty and Stay of the recovery is required to be granted & that this was the practice in such cases as mentioned by the Tribunal in the case of Uni Products (India) Ltd [].
Income Tax
Tax paid by employer for employee is perquisite which is not provided by way of monetary payment - Not includible in total income of assessee - taxes paid by employer can be added only once in salary of employee - tax on such perquisite is not to be added again : ITAT Special Bench
THE Special Bench has been constituted to dispose of the following issue:
"Whether tax paid by the employer on the income of the assessee is entitled to exemption u/s 10( 10CC ) of the Income-tax Act?"
After the introduction of clause ( 10CC ) in section 10 w.e.f . 1.4.2003 by the Finance Act, 2002, it was claimed by the assessee as an employee that where the employer has paid tax on the salary of the employee, the tax on such tax as perquisite is exempt under the above provision. In other words, it is not possible to have double grossing up. However, Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s BJ. Services Co. Middle East Ltd did not accept this contention of the assessee and held that tax paid by the employer was part of salary and, therefore, tax on tax is not exempt and is liable to be added for computing total income of the assessee employee.
Until tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com