Jurispruden tiol – Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

The mere fact that some enduring advantage results by incurring of expenditure does not mean that expenditure must be treated as capital in nature: ITAT

It is common knowledge that the models and design of passenger cars in the present days are changing frequently depending upon the taste of the customers and the competition. Therefore, a particular design or removal of a particular defect in the design of the cars cannot be said to confer any enduring advantage to the assessee company. Even assuming that there is some enduring advantage, the advantage is in the revenue field and not in the capital field. The cars are the stock-in-trade of the assessee. They are not part of the plant. The stock-in-trade must be made more attractive and safe from the point of view of the customers and any expenditure towards this end can only be regarded as revenue expenditure. Thus, the enduring benefit, if any, is not in the capital field. It is well settled that every expenditure that confers some enduring advantage cannot be regarded as capital expenditure.

Central Excise

Setback for EOUs : CESTAT rules Education Cess is payable on DTA clearances in addition to duties computed under relevant Notifications

THE first order on the dispute is out. And it went in favour of the revenue. In a significant judgement, which will have wide ramifications, the Tribunal upheld the order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the demand of education cess on DTA clearances made by the EOUs . Let us see why this dispute arose in the first place.

Customs

Gold seized in 1984 - sentenced to 2 year imprisonment - appeals to Supreme Court - appellant dies - late application by heirs - Appeal abates on death of appellant: Supreme Court

ON 11-11-1984 , on conducting a search by the officials of the Central Excise and Customs on the strength of a search warrant, they recovered and seized on such search primary gold, gold ornaments and gold weighing apparatus, besides gold of foreign origin weighing 3170.800 grams valued at Rs. 4 ,09,971.95 paise besides the containers.

The appellant, Hari Prasad Chopolia was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 135(b)(1) of the Customs Act and Section 85 (ii), (iii), (viii) and (ix) of the Gold (Control) Act, by the trial Court.

The High Court by the impugned order set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 135(b)(1) of the Customs Act while upholding the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 85 of the Gold Act. The sentence under the Gold Control Act was R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements