Jurisprudentiol–Tomorrow's cases
Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise
Cable Jointing kits - Undervaluation of manufactured inputs – Demand of Rs 5 Crore - Tribunal directs pre-deposit of Rs 15 lakhs for getting stay.
THE year was 1997 and telecom industry in the country was on the upswing. This was also the time when some manufacturers started assembling Cable Jointing Kits and selling the same in the market, a demanding market that is!
Board was watching all these activities and after examining the matter in ‘ depth ' [yes, these kits were being used for jointing underground cables] came out with a Circular ...
Income Tax
Surcharge in block assessment cases - Insertion of proviso to Sec 113 was clarificatory in nature - surcharge to be levied in search cases even before June 1, 2002 –Supreme Court
SURCHARGE in block assessment cases in Income Tax has for long been a 'charge' on protracted litigation. What spewed a bulk of litigations was the major confusion about whether it was leviable as per the rates provided in the Finance Act of the year in which the search was initiated or the year in which the search was concluded or the year in which the block assessment proceedings under Section 158 BC were initiated or the year in which block assessment order was passed. Then the Govt inserted a proviso to Sec 113 vide Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f 1.6.2002 which was largely interpreted to mean that surcharge was not applicable to search cases booked before 1.6.2002. However, in the latest decision the Apex Court has held that the insertion of proviso to Sec 113 was only to clear the doubt that the rates prescribed by the Finance Act of the year in which search was conducted will apply. In other words, it has now been held that the proviso to Sec 113 was only clarificatory in nature.
Customs
Authorization ought to have been given by Committee prior to filing of appeal under Sec 129A of Customs Act and not after appeal was dismissed on that ground – ROA dismissed by Tribunal
WHILE reporting the “ dasti ” order [What is ‘ dasti '? – See ] passed by the Tribunal in the case of CC(Gen), Mumbai vs. Canon Shipping Co. Pvt .Ltd. [] with the caption “Recalcitrant Revenue finds its appeal dismissed by Tribunal as being defective”, we had ended the article thus -
“ Revenue Appeals - a farcical affair ?
Filing an appeal for the sake of filing one has become the order of the day. It was only a small “authorization” that was required to be filed along with the appeal and that should have ended the matter, presuming there is one on record! Fortunately, the Tribunal did not vent its ire against the helpless DR, but we are certain this is not the end of the story!
If you think nothing is impossible, try yawning with your mouth closed – Anon”
As predicted by us, that was not the end of the story. It continued and saw the light of the day as an application for Restoration of the Appeal was filed by the Revenue.
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@taxindiaonline.com