TIOL-DDT 828 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>Untitled Document</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body>
<div align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>TIOL-DDT
828 <br>
</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>19.
03. 2008<br>
Wednesday</strong></font></div>
<p align="justify"></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Central
Excise registration – proprietors, partners and firms – there is
no ‘firm’ in Central Excise - CBEC reacts to CESTAT order –
in due course</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">In
a landmark judgement, the then President Abichandani of the CESTAT observed
in the case of <strong>M/s VASHIST ISPAT PRODUCT </strong><font size="1"><strong>- </strong></font></font><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=52&filename=legal/cestat/2007/2007-TIOL-992-CESTAT-DEL.htm" target="_blank">2007-TIOL-992-CESTAT-DEL</a></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. Registration
can be done only of such prescribed person, and not of a sole-proprietary concern,
which by itself is not a person. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. <strong>The
practice of giving registration in the name of a proprietary concern and not
the person, who is the proprietor, is contrary to the provisions of the said
Act and is capable of perpetuating frauds due to the real name of the person
concerned, being camouflaged by the assumed proprietary name. </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. None
of the provisions of the Act or the Rules warrants recognition of mere sole
proprietary name as manufacturer or assessee, who would be liable to pay the
duty. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. Only
a person living or juristic can be registered for the purposes of the Act and
will be liable to assessment and payment of duty irrespective of any name/names
that he may adopt for doing the proprietary business. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. All
the excise registrations and assessments under the Act and the Rules are required
to be done in the name(s) of the persons concerned even when they run their
proprietary business in different names. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6. <strong>In
fact, the practice of registering manufactures in the name of proprietary concerns,
appears to have been unwittingly recognized by a seemingly innocuous but a most
damaging instruction in note 5 which has crept in the prescribed Form A1, which
was substituted w.e.f. 1.10.2002.</strong> </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">7. The
said form is prescribed for application for central excise registration, in
the context of Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Surprisingly, though
Section 6 of the Act clearly contemplated registration of a person who is engaged
in the production or manufacture of excisable goods, the newly introduced instruction
no. 5 of the proforma application A1 requires that, <strong>name of the registrant
should be the name and style in which the registrant is likely to carry out
the business. </strong> </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">8. <strong>This
shady instruction 5 was wholly uncalled for and is contrary to the scheme of
the Act and the Rules, and is capable of perpetrating mischief and fraud by
shielding the names of the real persons who are engaged in the manufacture of
excisable goods and are required to be registered under Section 6 </strong>of
the Act read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which refer to the
registration of the person who produces or manufactures the excisable goods.
</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">9. There
was absolutely no scope for registering the name of any "non-person";
and the details of the properties, persons, directors as the case may be, were
also required to be given. In the same way, even in the still earlier proforma
in Form R1 under the Central Excise Rules of 1944, the application for registration
was required to be made by the person in whose name the registration certificate
was required to be issued. The application was to be made in the name of the
person (living or juristic) applying and not in any other name. Thus, there
never was any possibility of giving excise registration in the names of sole-proprietary
concerns. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">10.<strong>
In view of the substantive provisions of Section 6 of the said Act and Rule
9 of the said Rules, instruction No. 5 in the proforma application Form A1 is
ultra vires the scope of the said statutory provisions. All excise registrations
and assessments are required to be done in the name(s) of the persons concerned
even when they run proprietary business in different names. </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">11.
<strong>It will be for the Parliament, the rule making authority, the Board
and the excise officials to recognize the potential mischief and large scale
abuse that is caused by allowing the excise registrations and doing assessments
in the names of proprietary concerns and not in the names of the real persons
who are the manufacturers and assessees, and take appropriate remedial measures.</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
Registrar was directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Government
of India, Ministry of finance, North Block, New Delhi.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>We
carried this order of the CESTAT on July 22, 2007. </strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again
Justice Abichandani speaking for the Larger Bench over which he presided, observed
in the case of <strong>GOPAL INDUSTRIES LTD</strong> - </font><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=52&filename=legal/cestat/2007/2007-TIOL-932-CESTAT-DEL-LB.htm" target="_blank">2007-TIOL-932-CESTAT-DEL-LB</a></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">1. The
issue involved in this case is whether outgoing partners are liable to pay excise
duty assessed against a registered partnership firm, which was dissolved. Having
regard to the importance and wide repercussions of the question involved the
appeal has been placed for disposal before this Larger Bench.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">2. There
is no dispute about the fact that there is no reference express or implied in
the Central Excise Act or the Rules for assessment of a partnership firm, unlike
in the provisions of the Income Tax Act in which Section 2(31) provides an inclusive
definition of "person", which includes a "firm".</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">3. The
assessment of partnership firm under the Income Tax Act is separate from the
assessment of individual partners as regards their own income. Section 189(1)
of the Income Tax Act provides that when a firm is dissolved, the assessing
officer shall make an assessment of total income of the firm as if no dissolution
had taken place.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">4. <strong>There
is no such provision under the Excise Act and the Rules treating a partnership
firm as a separate assessable entity.</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">5. Excise
registration is done of any "prescribed person" as provided by Section
6 of the Act, and the word "assessee" in Rule 2(d) of the Central
Excise Rules means any person who is liable for payment of duty assessed or
a producer or a manufacturer of excisable goods or a registered person of a
private warehouse including his authorized agent.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">6. Since
no provision has been made in the Excise Act or Rules made thereunder, treating
a partnership firm as a distinct assessable entity, every partner would be liable
jointly with all other partners and also severally, for all acts of the firm,
done while he is a partner, as provided by Section 25 of the Indian Partnership
Act, 1932.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">We
carried this judgement also in July 2007. </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Obviously,
the good president had pointed out that there was something terribly wrong with
the Instruction No. 5 in the Central Excise application for registration. Obviously
the Central Excise registration has to be given to a person and not a firm or
concern which is not a juristic person.</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
Board has now amended the form to rectify this lapse – a good eight
months after we carried the orders! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">There
is an opinion in Revenue circles that the Tribunal is out and out for the assessee
which is not true. Judges like Justice Abichandani were the best advocates for
Revenue and got it out of the stupid mistakes committed by the babus in tinkering
Law and even suggested changes – which take months if not years to be
carried out because of the proverbial red tape!</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=30&filename=notification/excise/2008/exnt08_16.htm" target="_blank">CBEC’s
Notification No. 16/2008 – CX(NT) Dated : March 04, 2008</a></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Customs
and Excise exemption to goods for Samyukta programme of the Defence Ministry-
Dead notification resurrected! </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As
per Notification No. 64/95-Central Excise, dated the 16th March, 1995, all
goods supplied
to the SAMYUKTA Programme under the Ministry of Defence are exempted from Central
Excise duty. Similarly by Notification No. 39/96-Customs, dated the 23rd
July, 1996, Machinery, equipment, instruments, components, spares, jigs
and fixtures, dies, tools, accessories, computer software, raw materials
and consumables required for the purpose of SAMYUKTA Programme of the Ministry
of Defence, when imported are exempt from Customs duties. Both these exemptions
expired on 1st December 2007. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now
the Government has extended the validity of these notifications to the 1st day
of June 2008, but more than three months after their demise. Resurrection is
a very common feature with our Board! </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">What
happens for the period between 1st December 2007 and 17th march 2008? </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=23&filename=notification/custom/2008/ctariff08_036.htm" target="_blank">Notification
No. 36/2008- cus and 15/2008 – CX Dated : March 17, 2008</a></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Land
Customs stations and routes for import and export – Myanmar </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As
per Notification No. 63/94 – cus, for Myanmar, Champai is a land customs
station and Road route from Champai to Melbek Tiau is the route. Now this is
changed to Zokhawthar as the Customs station and Road route from Champai to
Zokhawthar as the route.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As
per Section 7 (b) and (c) of the Customs Act, the Board may appoint </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(b)
the places which alone shall be land customs stations for the clearance of goods
imported or to be exported by land or inland water or any class of such goods;</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">(c)
the routes by which alone goods or any class of goods specified in the notification
may pass by land or inland water into or out of India, or to or from any land
customs station from or to any land frontier</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=24&filename=notification/custom/2008/cnt08_027.htm" target="_blank">Notification
No. 27/2008- cus (NT) Dated : March 17, 2008</a></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Basmati
rice exports allowed through Mundra and Pipava ports</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
DGFT has added Mundra and Pipava ports to the list of ports for export of basmati
rice. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2007/dgft07not084.htm" target="_blank">DGFT
Notification No. 84 (RE-2007)/2004-2009 Dated : March 17, 2008</a></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ban
on export of edible oils</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
DGFT has prohibited export of all edible oils falling under Chapter 15 of the
Tariff for a period of one year from 17.03.2008.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=45&filename=notification/dgft/2007/dgft07not085.htm" target="_blank">DGFT
Notification No. 85 (RE-2007)/2004-2009 Dated : March 17, 2008</a></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Import
of Sandalwood – cut off date for filing applications.</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
DGFT has clarified that the last date for making applications would be 31st
of July for each licensing year. Thereafter, further applications would be considered
on “first come first served” basis, provided the earmarked quantity
has not been exhausted.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=46&filename=notification/dgft/2007/dgft07cir032.htm" target="_blank">DGFT
Policy Circular No. 32 (RE-2007)/2004-2009 Dated : March 13, 2008</a></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font color="#006600" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Extension
of Block of years for fulfilment of export obligation</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">DGFT
has decided that "The request for extension of Block of years for fulfilment
of export obligation may be considered by the concerned Regional Authorities,
subject to payment of 2% of duty saved on unfulfilled E.O. for each block, in
respect of the licenses up to Rs.50 crores; on a similar basis as contained
in Para 5.11 of HBP Vol.I for extension of export obligation period. All Cases
above Rs.50 crores may be forwarded to DGFT (HQ) for consideration of EPCG Committee".</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=46&filename=notification/dgft/2007/dgft07cir033.htm" target="_blank">DGFT
Policy Circular No. 33 (RE-2007)/2004-2009 Dated : March 17, 2008</a></font></p>
<p align="center"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600">Jurispruden</font><font color="#FF6633" size="5">
tiol</font> <font color="#006600">– Tomorrow ' s cases </font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#006600" size="3" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><b><img src="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/image/stories/ddt_31.gif" alt="Legal Corner Icon" width="191" height="160" hspace="5" border="0" align="left" /></b></strong></font></strong></font></strong></font></font></strong></font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Central
Excise </font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>Export
packing to be considered as manufacture - Cenvat Credit refund eligible: CESTAT</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">THE
impugned order has upheld rejection of two refund claims totalling above
Rs.12 Lakhs being the accumulated CENVAT credit pertaining to the last quarter
of 2004 and the first quarter of 2005 in the account of M/s. Bala Handlooms
Export Company (BHEC), Chennai. These two appeals have been filed by BHEC.
The appellant generally procures yarn and gets it bleached, dyed, converted
into fabrics and embroidered through job workers. Occasionally they also
purchase fabrics of Chapter Heading 5406. These and the job worked goods
are exported. As per the impugned order, the refund in question relates to
credit of duty paid on purchased fabrics of CSH 5406 which were exported.
The lower authorities have denied the refund of credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT
Credit Rules (CCR) on the ground that the appellants had not undertaken any
process of manufacture on the fabrics (inputs) received. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
original authority rejected the plea of the appellants that their case was similar
to the one dealt with by the Tribunal in CCE Vs. Weston Electronics and following
the ruling of the Apex Court’s decision in the case of CCE Vs. Maharashtra
Fur Fabrics Ltd in rejecting the appellant’s claim. In that judgment,
while dealing with a dispute on processes amounting to manufacture to which
fabrics were subjected to, the Apex Court interpreted the said Notification,
that the import of the specific expressions had to be kept in mind to decide
what were the other processes. Thus understood, processes akin to the specified
processes alone fell within the meaning of ‘any other processes’
in the proviso.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">Doctrine
of unjust enrichment has no application to deposits made Under Protest during
pendency of dispute – Tribunal allows appeal with consequential relief</font></strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>THE</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong> </strong>assessee had a dispute with the department regarding the benefit of
an exemption notification. They ultimately succeeded in their claim before
the Tribunal & the Revenue did not appeal further.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">However,
during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant deposited the duty amount
due as per the direction of the Revenue. This, he did under a TR6 challan,
but Under Protest.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Consequent
upon the issue having settled in his favour, he filed a refund claim to get
back the amount of Rs.2,66,579/- paid by him under protest.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
appellant’s refund claim was sanctioned by the lower authority but ordered
to be transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment
citing the SC decision in Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. [</font><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><a href="http://www.taxindiaonline.com/RC2/subCatDesc.php3?subCatDisp_Id=50&filename=legal/sc/2005/2005-TIOL-45-SC-CX-LB.htm" target="_blank">2005-TIOL-48-SC-CX-LB</a></strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">].</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The
Commissioner (Appeals) too did not find anything amiss with this order &
hence the appellant is before the Tribunal.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Customs
</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Import
of second-hand Sailboat – Tribunal allows importer to sail smoothly on
rough seas</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>BOATING</strong></font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
is catching on in a big way in Mumbai. If the Mumbai International Boat Show
that was recently held is any indication, we may soon see the finest & the
most expensive yachts being bought & boating becoming a popular pastime
among the upwardly mobile.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">With
incomes reaching six digit figures quite easily, VC fund managers, CEOs, entrepreneurs,
professionals are looking for recreational options beyond malls, multiplexes
or holiday resorts & they have found it in leisure boating.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Worldwide,
boating is a popular hobby & recreational option in coastal cities &
soon Mumbai, Goa, Cochin & Alibaug will join the bandwagon. In the south
of France, boating related activities contribute nearly 40 per cent of the region’s
income.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Today,
Mumbai’s boat market has a huge range beginning with small kayaks that
cost Rs.20k to yachts that cost many crores – you can buy sail boats,
kayaks, ski boats, motor boats, luxury yachts and much much more from the world’s
leading international boat makers such as Azimut, Ferretti, Jeanneau, Larson
& Princess – all through dealers in Mumbai. As for parking your boat,
for an annual fee of Rs.6000/- the Mumbai Port Trust will give you a parking
slot at the Gateway of India, and ensure that the boat is safe while it is parked
there – unlike the regular vehicle parking slots which have a board prominently
displaying – “Parking at Owner’s risk”. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">As
someone said, people driving a Porsche or a Maybach on potholed roads are not
fools to waste a sprawling coastline. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Income
Tax</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#FF6633" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Rebate
given by Coop society to members is allowable deduction: ITAT</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">Interest
liability not accrued in the Assessment year cannot be allowed as deduction.</font></strong>
It cannot be said that there was any liability on the part of the
assessee till such time the Delhi High Court passed a decree which was only
on 28.1.2000 after the end of the Accounting Year. The same cannot be claimed
as a deduction in the aforesaid A.Ys. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">Disallowance
of the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of rebate given to members</font>.</strong>
The nature of rebate is such that it cannot be said to be an appropriation of
profits. It is more in the nature of commission or incentive and is an allowable
deduction while computing income. The rebate allowed to the members goes to
increase the purchase price of the assessee and consequently will also reduce
its profits. It is only after taking into account such rebate that true profits
of the Assessee can be arrived at. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong><font color="#FF6633">Ex-gratia
to employees -</font> </strong>remanded: The assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 1,13,80,021/-
on account of exgratia payment to the employees. it was pointed out that
in A.Y. 1996-97 the CIT (A) allowed similar claim of the assessee holding that
it was in the nature of bonus and should be allowed on the basis of the actual
payment, subject to the provisions of Ss.43 B of the Act. So the Tribunal remanded
the matter to the AO for a fresh consideration for a decision, in accordance
with the decision of the CIT (A) in the A.Y. 1996-97.</font></p>
<p align="justify"><strong><font color="#663399" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">See
our columns tomorrow for the judgements</font></strong></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Until
tomorrow with more <strong>DDT</strong></font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Have
a nice day. </font></p>
<p align="justify"><font color="#FF6666" size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mail
your comments to</font><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<a href="mailto:vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com" target="_blank">vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com</a></font></p>
</body>
</html>