Jurisprudentiol - Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Classification - Printing whether merely incidental or primary - Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes - Matter remanded: SC Larger Bench

DISPOSAL of appeals by mere reference to decisions was not the proper way to deal with the appeals. By clubbing all the cases together and without analyzing the special features of each case disposing of the appeals in the manner done was not proper. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context.

Income Tax

When undivided right and interest in property is owned by shareholders irrevocably and perpetually, company cannot claim ownership and consequently depreciation u/s 32 is not allowable: ITAT

THE appellant's claim for depreciation fails in as much as the true ownership of the property rests with the shareholders. It was observed that the appellant-company did not have any rights that are normally incidental to rights of ownership. It was further observed that the appellant-company cannot even encumber the property, let alone sell or otherwise transfer the property. In fact, the appellant company's only activity, despite claiming to be the owner of the property, was to maintain the property.

Customs

EPCG licence for import of 'new crane' but appellants imported 'old and used crane' and fudged import documents - as goods were meant for Sardar Sarovar project and importers would not earn any substantial profit from sale of crane, fine and penalty reduced by Tribunal

"The words "used" was obliterated by applying white fluid ink in the invoice and packing list and by applying black ink on the insurance documents."

Why was this done for? Simply because the company wanted to import "One old and used Tower Crane" from Germany for use in the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam project although the EPCG licence was for import of a 'new crane'.

The result - the Commissioner of Customs confiscated the Liebherr Tower Crane imported by the appellants

See our columns Monday for the judgements