Jurispruden tiol – Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise

Provisions of Chapter VII of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944 have no effect after the omission of the Rules – CESTAT Larger Bench.

It was only on 3rd July we reported the Chennai Petroleum case 2008-TIOL-1040-CESTAT-MAD wherein a reference was made to the Larger Bench with the following questions:

(a) Whether the special provisions for refineries laid down in Chapter VII of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be considered to have continued to be in force under the Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001 and the Central Excise Rules, 2002;

(b) Whether, after 30.06.2001, the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the special scheme for refineries provided under Rule 143A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.

The above reference was made only 13.5.2008 and the Larger Bench has answered reference very quickly epitomising a faster justice delivery system. Vide their order dated 30.6.2008, the Larger Bench answered the reference in negative and in favour of the revenue.

Customs

Service Tax paid on GTA services - TR-6 challan has to be considered as valid duty paying document for availment of credit during the period 01.01.2005 to 15.06.2005 – Issue no longer res integra: Tribunal

The assessee was availing CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods, input services including the service tax paid on the GTA services. They had availed CENVAT credit of the Service Tax paid on GTA services during the period 01.01.2005 to 15.06.2005 on the basis of the TR-6 challan.

This was objected by the jurisdictional authorities on the ground that it was only by notification 28/2005CE(N.T) dated 07.06.2005 [w.e.f 16.06.2005] that such “TR-6 challans” evidencing Service Tax payment on GTA services were notified as cenvatable documents.

Income Tax

Declaration for withdrawal of exemption claim is mandatory but time-limit to do so before due date of filing of return is only directory; Assessee cannot be disadvantaged even if it exceeds time limit but files it before framing of assessment: High Court

SECTION 10B of Income Tax Act, 1961 allows exemption to 100% EOU which can avail the same for any five consecutive years in a block of eight assessment years. What is in dispute in this case is whether the requirement of Section 10B(7) that a declaration for withdrawal of exemption under Section 10B(1) read with Section 10B(3) of the Act should be filed before the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act is directory or mandatory? And the Delhi HC has come to the conclusion that there are two limbs to this issue, and the first one related to filing of a declaration for withdrawal of a claim of exemption is mandatory whereas the second limb relating to the time period prescribed for filing the same before the due date of filing the return is only directory.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements