The Central Excise Act, 1944 provides levy of excise duty by different methods. In a recent judgment of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. CCE 2014 (35) STR 641 (Chhattisgarh) the Hon’ble Court held that place of removal is to be decided on facts and circumstances of each case.
i. Whether any service tax can be charged on a sale of an item or vice versa; ii. Whether in view of Article 366 (29A)(f) service is subsumed in sale of food and drinks; iii. Whether section 66E(i) of the 1994-Act is violative of Article 366 (29A)(f) of the Constitution.
‘In the United States, these ‘fact-cases’ are likened to railroad-tickets: ‘valid for single journey only’. The Americans are not greatly enamoured (as we or the British are) about precedent, and every ten or fifteen years they appoint a body of very learned and wise lawyers, who go into the hundreds of cases reported in all the decisions across the United States and then come up with what is called a ‘restatement’ of the law on every possible topic. After the restatement, no case can be cited of a period prior to the restatement, and a large body of useless case law gets confined to the dustbin of legal history.’
ACIT vs. Major Deepak Mehta (Chattisgarh High Court) – The Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (supra) observed that after issuing a notice under Section 148, the income which has initially formed a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment, but as a matter of fact has not escaped assessment. The AO cannot proceed to assess some other income independently, however, it was observed that it is open for the AO to issue a fresh notice under Section 148 and proceed thereafter. The High Court of Delhi in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra), has taken the similar view.
The contention of the assessee that warrant of authorization was not issued individually in the name of the assessee, thus, the case is distinguishable and the assessee was not prohibited from making any declaration of undisclosed income as the search itself conducted under section 132 was bad, does not merit acceptance.
Benefit in lieu of salary payable to an employee opting for voluntary retirement is exempted from being charged to tax to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs by reason of section 10(10C); even if the payment is stretched over a period of years, the same would not become chargeable to tax in any subsequent assessment year
