Jurispruden tiol – Tomorrow ' s cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Income Tax

Non-resident company deputes staff to India for imparting technical expertise - Reimbursement of expenses - such payments are integral to process of advice of technical character and are liable to TDS provisions: ITAT

IS reimbursement of expenses incurred on technical personnel of a non-resident company, deputed to India for imparting technical training, liable to provisions of Sec 195? This was the question before the Bench and the Tribunal has ruled in favour of the Revenue. The ITAT has held that it is true that the non-resident company has no PE in India but such a fact will not have any bearing on the chargeability of tax on fees for technical services u/s 9(1)(vii). Since the payments were made while executing the agreement and it was an integral part of the process of advice of technical character, such payments on account of reimbursement does attract the provisions of Sec 195.

Customs

Much-reported Olga smuggling case: Tribunal finds prima facie evidence of organised smuggling; asks 8 Customs officers to pre-deposit sum ranging from Rs 50000 to Rs one lakh

BEFORE we bring you the details of this CESTAT stay order, let's recall the story of a 27-year-old Uzbek beauty-stunner who used to seduce her way through the Green Channel at IGI Airport! But her 'intaxicating' style of smuggling did not last long when she landed up at IGI Airport with a few other accused, in August, 2000 and was arrested by the Customs. She was carrying commercial quantity of Chinese silk fabrics. Any idea about the quantum of the quantity? Unbelievable - 2200 kg. What made her so bold to carry such a quantity as accompanied baggage?

The Tribunal says : ''We find that there has been an organized smuggling using the passengers. The passengers involved were found to be frequently travelling. The evidence from airlines indicate huge weights of cargo booked in the names passengers paying substantial freight. It is claimed the baggages came as "pooled baggage." The examining officers and the baggage superintendents who were supervising the work of examining officers who have access to passports have not recorded that the passengers are frequent travellers and have not taken efforts to tally the total packages in the pooled baggage and all the passengers in the group. These omissions do not appear to be accidental.

Central Excise

Refund claim filed in November 1998 – assessee succeeding in appeal before Tribunal in January 2004 – Interest to be paid after expiry of three months from date of filing of refund claim: Tribunal

THE relevant facts of the case are that the appellants claim for refund of the modvat credit reversed by them on capital goods was rejected by the adjudicating authority on 18.07.2000. The said findings were reversed by the Tribunal vide order dt.21.01.2004 and the appellant filed a letter dt. 03.03.2004 with the authorities asking them to grant the amount of the refund as per the Tribunal's order. The lower authorities sanctioned the amount of the refund considering this date i.e. 03.03.2004 as the date for filing the refund claim. The appellant subsequently filed a claim seeking the interest of the delayed payment. It was rejected; the matter was carried to the Tribunal & the Tribunal vide its order dt. 09.01.2006 remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to consider the feasibilty of granting interest on the amount so refunded. The adjudicating authority vide order dt. 20.02.2006 granted an interest of Rs.55,331/-.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements