Jurisprudentiol– Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

No reversal of CENVAT required during manufacture of Nitrogen gas as Oxygen gas released into atmosphere is not a ‘manufactured' product - Tribunal

YOU cannot but admire their resilience and the unflinching perseverant attitude. We are talking of Revenue and their gutsy spirit in fighting for a Rs 62 thousand case.

The adjudicating authority dropped the demand and the Revenue took their case to the Commissioner( Appeals) – they lost here too and so took their matter to the Tribunal. The respondent assessee chose to sit on the fence and watch the proceedings and hence gave their written submission and requested the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits. After all, it costs! As for the Revenue, filing an appeal is free!

Income Tax

Amounts reimbursed in connection with feasibility study of airport project - Expenses incurred by non-resident company outside India with regard to services received from another non-resident company for feasibility study of project in India not subject to TDS: ITAT

BANGALORE International Airport Ltd (BIAL), Bangalore had to cross many hurdles in its race against time to come up with airport of International standards and finally became operational in May 2008. In the process, it also stumbled upon Income tax department and the objections with regard to reimbursement of pre-project expenses amounting to EUR 4.2 Million and Swiss Francs 6.1 Million. Before we proceed to understand the objections of the tax authorities, let us briefly appreciate the background and facts of the case.

Service Tax

Penalty on revision when matter is under appeal - Commissioner, who imposes penalty for violation of Finance Act, violates his own Finance Act ... Commissioner's order premature: CESTAT

COMMISSIONERS … They are the top officers who administer the tax in the field. The Government and the Board repose a lot of faith and trust in them. The rhetoric Board Circulars routinely say “the Commissioners should ensure speedy disposal of refund claims …Commissioners should ensure no officer should contact the service tax assessee……Commissioners should…..etc etc”. But unfortunately all the Commissioners are not as well informed as the benign Board thinks. Take this case. The assessee is a service provider and there was a demand against him for non payment of service tax. The original authority demanded service tax for the period 2005-06 and 2006-07 and also imposed penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act 1994. The assessee filed appeal against the said order and the matter is pending before the Commissioner (Appeals)

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements