Jurispruden tiol – Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Reprieve for Moser Baer – CESTAT waives pre-deposit in case of huge demand of duty on clearances by EOU in DTA

GOODS manufactured by EOU and cleared in DTA are leviable to duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act read with Notification 23/2003 CE dated 31.3.2003. As the goods cleared are subjected to aggregate duties of customs leviable on like goods if imported into India, the duties include the additional duty of customs leviable under sub-section 5 of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 also. The objective of this levy has been explained in the Section itself that it is aimed at counterbalancing the sales tax, value added tax, local tax or any other charges for the time being leviable on a like article on its sale, purchase or transportation in India. In case where the goods are cleared by the EOU in DTA, the same are normally subjected to local sales tax/VAT. Therefore to avoid double levy, the additional duty has been exempted for the clearances by EOUs vide Notification 23/2003 CE.

Income Tax

Just because Revenue has preferred no appeal in one case it does not amount to a bar to prefer appeal in another case on same issue - it can do so in public interest: Supreme Court

IT is not uncommon to find conflicting decisions on a particular tax issue by different High Courts. It is also not uncommon to find that the Revenue has accepted the decision in one particular appeal but has gone ahead and filed appeal in the case of another assessee on the same issue. But what went against the Revenue was the Apex Court decision that once the Revenue has accepted a particular decision on a particular issue in the case of an assessee, it cannot go in appeal in the case of another assessee on the same issue. And this is what prompted the Revenue to move the Apex Court which referred the same to a Larger Bench. The LB decision has come, and the Supreme Court has ruled that merely because in some cases the revenue has not preferred appeal that does not operate as a bar for the revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher Court when divergent views are expressed by the Tribunals or the High Courts.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements