Jurisprudentiol–Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

RSP/MRP of Spray paints enhanced after import – Goods Notified u/s 4A of the CEA , 1944 - Additional demand of CVD duty sustainable – Pre-deposit ordered of the entire duty together with interest and penalty - CESTAT

THERE is a vast difference between the RSP declared in the Bills of Entry and the price lists and the RSP stickers affixed on the cans. It appears that the RSP stickers affixed at the godowns of the applicants indicate the correct RSP (MRP), which was much higher and the same constitutes the actual RSP (MRP) of the said imported goods before sale. It appears to be a case of manipulation of the MRP. The applicants, it seems, have deliberately obliterated the stickers bearing the declared MRP in the Bills of Entry in question for assessment of CVD under section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with the mala fide intent to evade payment of duty.

Income Tax

End to end international long distance telecommunication services – not royalty; not fee for technical services; no permanent establishment, no tax payable in India by the foreign company and no TDS - Advance Ruling

IT is well settled that telecom services are standard services. The arrangement between the applicant and C&W UK is for rendition of service and the applicant pays for the same. It is for C&W UK to see how it will provide that service. The applicant is not concerned with the same. The applicant does not pay for using any secret process in the present case.

Hey ROM!

SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 35 C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 allows the CESTAT to rectify any mistake apparent from the record and amend the order passed under Sub-section (1) if the mistake is brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the Commissioner of Central Excise or the other party to the appeal

BUT the interesting question is whose mistake this Sub-section refers to. A common understanding of the above provisions would imply that the mistake obviously should have been by the Tribunal which is allowed to be corrected by the same Bench. But if it is department's mistake, can the Tribunal correct it? Confusing? Well, please keep reading the rest of the story.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements