Jurisprudentiol– Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules are not applicable when the amount equivalent to the CENVAT Credit attributable to the common inputs used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of exempted final products has been paid prior to the removal of exempted final products from the factory: CESTAT Larger Bench

IT can be noticed from the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court, that it is the settled law that reversal of the credit taken on the inputs is as good as non-availment of the credit on the inputs.

Now what happens if the Credit is reversed after the removal of exempted final products? Does the time of reversal make any difference to the liability?

Income Tax

Income tax - DTAA with Canada - income from entertainment show - TDS deducted - AO for taxing global income - Income derived in Canada not taxable in India as expression 'may be taxed in other State' precludes State of residence to tax the same income: ITAT

HERE is a dispute that involves the DTAA between India and Canada. And the epicentre of the dispute is the expression ''may be taxed in other state''. The Revenue attaches a friendly connotation to the expression whereas the assessee claims that once an income is taxed in Canada, the tax treaty clearly precludes the State of residence of the assessee from taxing an income already taxed at source.

Service Tax

Outward transport not input service? – Inox Air gets stay from High Court

THE very assessee based on whose earlier order pre-deposit was ordered in case of Inox Air Products got relief from pre-deposit for the subsequent case. Also against the same Inox Air, there are two different orders – pre-deposit waived in Mumbai and pre-deposit ordered in Chennai.

Inox has approached the High Court against the Tribunal's denial of waiver of pre-deposit.

See our columns on Monday for the judgements