CASE LAWS
2016-TIOL-506-HC-MUM-CUS
ANANDEYA ZINC OXIDES PVT LTD Vs UoI: BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Dated: February 2, 2016)
Cus - When the Petitioners have admitted that they had manufactured their goods and exported them in terms of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 19 of the CER, 2002, the question of admitting their claim towards customs allocation drawback is not at all justified - Petition rejected: High Court [para 13, 14]
Petition rejected
2016-TIOL-383-ITAT-MUM
HIKAL LTD Vs DCIT: MUMBAI ITAT (Dated: February 17, 2016)
Income Tax - Sections 143(3), 147 & 148.
Keywords: income escaping assessment - notice of assessment - disallowances - lack of jurisdiction - reassessment of income.
Whether when in the reasons recorded by the AO there was no indication that because of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts income has escaped assessment, an order can be passed u/s 147 - NO: ITAT
Assessee's appeal allowed
2016-TIOL-382-ITAT-PUNE
MATHER AND PLATT PUMPS LTD Vs ACIT: PUNE ITAT (Dated: January 20, 2016)
Income Tax - Slow-moving/obsolete inventory - Valuation of inventory
Whether to better evaluate Slow-moving/obsolete inventory mainly closing stock, case be remanded to the file of the AO with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate with evidence to his satisfaction regarding the basis of the valuation of the inventory - YES : ITAT
Case Remanded
2016-TIOL-630-CESTAT-DEL
CC Vs AVAYA GLOBAL CONNECT LTD: DELHI CESTAT (Dated: February 17, 2016)
Cus - Valuation - Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2008 -Adjudicating authority held that the royalty paid in terms of the technology transfer Agreement was a condition of sale of the goods by Lucent Technologies Inc. to the appellant and, therefore, it was includible in the assessable value, while the Commissioner (Appeals) held that it was not a condition of sale - Revenue in appeal before CESTAT. Held: Initially, the appellant was importing components to manufacture cards but subsequently the appellant started importing cards themselves - Royalty in both the circumstances remained the same and continued to be based upon the number of ports activated - Once it is held that royalty payment is a condition of sale, it is immaterial how the royalty payable is computed - In the present case, royalty payment was arrived at on the basis of number of ports activated by the card, therefore, the royalty paid by the appellant is includible in the assessable value - Revenue appeal allowed: CESTAT [para 5, 6]
Appeal allowed
2016-TIOL-629-CESTAT-DEL
USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD Vs CST: DELHI CESTAT (Dated: February 4, 2016)
ST - Refund - appellant filed a refund claim of Rs.84,76,586/- on 8.1.2009 seeking refund of service tax paid on royalty paid by the transferee company M/s Usha International Ltd. (UIL) to transferer company M/s Jay Engineering Works Ltd. (JEW) on the basis of the High Court order dated 26.5.2008 approving merger of the erstwhile UIL and M/s Shree Ram Fuel Injections Ltd. (SRFIL) with JEW with effect from 1.4.2007 being appointed the date of said merger – lower authority sanctioning the same but in Revenue appeal, matter remanded and original authority rejecting refund – in appeal by assessee, Commissioner (A) concluding that since Registrar of Companies, National Capital Territory of Delhi & Haryana, Ministry of Company Affairs, issued to the appellant its approval for change of name of JEW to Usha International Ltd. from 20.6.2008 and, therefore, up to that date the rendition of service cannot be termed as service to self and the service tax was correctly payable/paid and so no refund was admissible – appeal to CESTAT; appeal also against the recovery of earlier sanctioned ‘erroneous refund'. Held: High Court did not direct appointed date or transfer date to be any different date from 1st April 2007 as stipulated in para 1 part 1.3 of the said scheme of arrangement between JEW and Usha International and Shiv Industries - pending the approval and sanction of the scheme by the High Court, transferor company carried on its business and activities for and on account of and in trust for transferee company - only inescapable conclusion which emerges is that the amalgamation was effective from 1.4.2007 even if its approval by the High Court and the letter of Registrar of Companies approving change of name of JEW to Usha International were issued later - there remains no scope for any debate that the date of amalgamation in the present case is to be held to be 1.4.2007 and not 20.6.2008 - Obvious consequence of this is that the service rendered during the impugned period (1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008) became service to self and consequently service tax paid during the said period became eligible for refund - even if Section 12B is held to be inapplicable to the present case, the onus still lies on the appellant to show that it had not passed on the burden to any other persons – However, as the service was rendered to self and service tax was paid thereon, burden can only passed on to self and passing on the burden to self is not tantamount to passing it to any other person - in the given circumstances the appellants refund claim is not hit by the doctrine of unjust enrichment - appellant entitled to the refund of Rs. 71,74,496/- - Appeals allowed: CESTAT [para 6, 7, 8]
Appeals allowed
