Jurisprudentiol– Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Sale and lease back of assets - Depreciation permissible - Leasing business is a legal business in the country - Overvaluation of assets - CIT(A) right in remanding case for quantifying actual cost: ITAT

THE Tribunal dealt with miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue wherein it was urged that the final order passed by the Tribunal had not dealt with the issue of legality in sale/lease back transaction of certain assets and depreciation claim thereof by the appellant. After perusing the history of the case, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's arguments on this aspect and took up the miscellaneous applications filed by Revenue for disposal.

Central Excise

Appeal to High Court - High Court has no power to condone delay - Limitation Act not applicable: Bombay High Court

Limitation Act not applicable - It is not essential for the special or local law, in terms, to exclude the provisions of the Limitation Act. It is sufficient that if on a consideration of the language of its provision relating to limitation, the intention to exclude can necessarily be implied. The essence of providing a limitation is that a legal right of remedy available at a given point of time could distinguish in law after expiry of the said period. Where the Legislature gives no power to the court to condone the delay after the specified period of limitation, the court may not be able to assume such a power in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The law is what it reads on its plain and simple reading. The provisions of section 35G admit no ambiguity. In no uncertain terms it commands the institution of the appeal within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Appellate Tribunal by the aggrieved party whereafter the provisions do not give or vest the court with any power to entertain an appeal thereafter. Such exclusion of the provisions of the Limitation Act is, thus, implicit by necessary implication.

Central Excise

Bio Aloevera , Bio Bhringraj , Bio-cucumber - medicines or cosmetics - No attempt made by Revenue to prove these are cosmetics - When there is a classification dispute, suppression cannot be alleged: Supreme Court

THERE has been no attempt on the part of the Revenue to prove that these products are cosmetic as has been held in BPL Pharmaceutical's case. In that view we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was right in holding these products to be the medicinal products and we approve of the findings of the Tribunal in that behalf regarding the classification of the product.

Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - Re-assessment of Input services cannot be done by the receiver's jurisdictional authorities: Tribunal sets aside order with consequential relief

AFTER considering the submissions and noticing that there also existed Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 w.e.f 01.08.2002 [notification 14/2002-ST], the Bench found no merit in the stand of the Department and set aside the order of the Commissioner (A) with consequential relief to the appellant.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements