Jurisprudentiol–Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Appeals – ‘person aggrieved': Buyer feels excise duty is not payable, but manufacturer does not file appeal in Tribunal – Buyer entitled to file appeal as it has no other remedy: Bombay HC

THE legislature has used the expression any person aggrieved and not the word “manufacturer”. If it was the intention of the legislature that the expression any person has to be read as only “manufacturer” then there was no reason for the legislature to use the expression “any person”. Once the legislature has used an expression which has received judicial interpretation then that interpretation will have to be followed to find the object and the reason for using the expression. The Appellant has demonstrated the prejudice that would be occasioned. It is in that context that the court rightly had directed the appellant to move an application to seek relief to prefer an appeal. The tribunal unfortunately misread the judgment of this court and proceeded to examine whether an appeal itself lies.

Income Tax

Dispute between State PSUs and Central Departments – Delhi Metro is hybrid PSU - COD clearance required: ITAT

THE question is whether in case of disputes between the Income-tax Department and the hybrid PSU, the previous approval of the COD is required? Such permission is required in case of a PSU of the Central Government or the undertaking of the State Government. Therefore, there is no reason to come to a conclusion that such an approval is not required in case of a hybrid PSU.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements