Jurisprudentiol – Tomorrow ' s casesLegal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.

By Vijay Kumar

Income Tax

Limitation under Sec 254 - S C sets aside High C ourt decision for counting period of pendency of ROM application to calculate the limitation period of four years

IN an interesting decision involving the powers of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) under Sec 254, the Supreme C ourt has held that, for counting the period of four years limitation as engrained in the sub-section (1) of the Sec 254, the period of pendency of ROM application is not to be taken into account. Setting aside the Madras High C ourt decision which also counted the period of pendency for arriving at the limitation order, the Apex C ourt upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow an ROM application filed within the outer limit of four years as per the law.

Central Excise

Exempted refined edible oil cleared in tin cans or plastic jars – credit availed on tin sheets & HDPE granules – rule 6 of C C R , 2004 applicable, but no penalty under rule 15 for misfeasance of rule 6: Tribunal

ONCE again, we come to our favourite Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as it existed prior to 01.04.2008.

Before we report the latest decision of the Tribunal let us discuss the facts and the inference that has been drawn by the Revenue & that which could have been…

Central Excise

Notification 67/95- CE is distinct from 217/86- CE – what is essential is that the goods should be capital goods as defined in rule 57Q of CER , 1944 – Tribunal allows Revenue appeal.

Notification 217/86- CE exempted goods (inputs) specified in column (2) of the Table annexed & manufactured in a factory and used within the factory of production, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products specified in column (3) of the said Table, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon subject to certain conditions.

The explanation (i) appearing in the said notification clarified that inputs' does not include “machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in any substance in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products;”.

During the era of the said notification, the assessee had a similar problem on hand – they were denied the benefit of the notification 217/86- CE in respect of lifting tackles, trolleys, conveyors and measuring instruments such as gauges/templates manufactured by them for being utilized captively in the manufacture of final products.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements