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

By Vijay Kumar

Central Excise

Various hues to Berger case – WZB of Tribunal refuses to modify earlier order asking for pre-deposit of Rs.2.5 Cr – time extended for payment of amount – SZB decision in assessees own case of no help

WE had reported the Berger Paint case heard by the WZB, Mumbai [2008-TIOL-269-CESTAT-Mum] and where the Bench had ordered the company to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 2.5 Crores and report compliance by 12.05.2008.

A similar case was booked against the same assessee down South and when the matter came up for hearing, the Bench after hearing the assessee granted complete stay. [See 2008-TIOL-913-CESTAT-MAD].

Egged by this decision, the assessee filed a modification application before the WZB – without success of course.

NCCD - exemption notification does not have retrospective effect - Revenue wins: CESTAT

It is far-fetched to say that the exemption provided under this Notification should be extended for a period prior to the date of introduction of the exemption. The Revenue's appeal is well-founded and is firmly supported by the case law cited. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Income Tax

Sec 80IA benefits not available to assessees engaged only in operating and maintaining power plants: ITAT

ARE Sec 80IA benefits available to an enterprise which has only a service contract with a power generating undertaking? While dismissing the appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal has held that the assessee which had only an operating and maintenance contract for running the power plant cannot claim Sec 80IA(4)(iv)(a) benefits as it had no ownership right of the final output being generated. What further disentitles the assessee the works contract nature of the contract which is unambiguously excluded from deduction u/s 80IA as introduced by Finance Act 2007 with retrospective effect from April 1 2000.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements