Jurisprudentiol–Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Order passed twice on same set of appeals – subsequent final order recalled as fault lies with registry: Tribunal

TWO for the price of one. Visualize this. You file an appeal before the Tribunal in the year 1999 and after a five year wait the same comes to be decided on merits, in the year 2004.

Two years later i.e. in year 2006, you receive a hearing notice from the Registry informing you that the appeals filed in the year 1999 are posted for hearing. But naturally, you are flummoxed and after regaining your composure, in the most polite manner inform the Registry that the matters have been already disposed of. Needless to mention, you make it a point to enclose a copy of the final order passed in 2004.

You think that since things have been clarified, it is the end of the matter. Of course, you clarified but then the letter has to find its parent file for any action to be taken.

Unfortunately, you are mistaken. A year later i.e. in year 2007, you are stunned to receive an order from the Tribunal informing that the appeals have been dismissed for – you guessed it right - “non-appearance”.

Income Tax

Commission paid or allowed as a deduction from gross rate to insurance companies does not fall within category of remuneration or reward for soliciting or procuring insurance business – No TDS: ITAT

THE insurance companies have not provided any service of soliciting or procuring of insurance business for the assessee company. On the other hand, the assessee company has provided reinsurance to the insurance companies. The insurance companies do not get business from the insured for the assessee. The said insurance companies have got business for themselves and not for the assessee company. The insurance companies get business either directly or through agents. If any commission is paid to the agents by them, that attracts provisions of section 194D as the same is paid for services rendered for soliciting or procuring insurance business.

Customs

Unaccounted diamonds not available for confiscation – Wrong averment made in ROM application by Revenue that said diamonds were released on execution of bond – Tribunal shreds ROM application

INTERESTINGLY, there is something more to the entire episode – the earlier Tribunal order dated 25.04.2008 had been accepted by the (then?) Commissioner on 11.07.2008 and was not taken up for further appeal. And if that be so, it is not understood as to how and why the ROM came to be filed by the Commissioner in October 2008.

Now, wherefrom did we get this information……………..

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements