Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Department cannot approbate and reprobate – when the applicant has taken Cenvat credit and paid duty, which as per the Department is not payable, yet having accepted the same, Revenue cannot refuse CENVAT on inputs – recovery of nearly two Crores stayed - CESTAT

THE applicants have been manufacturing various press parts required in automobile industry and engineering industry. They have been availing CENVAT credit. For manufacture of press parts, the applicants have been procuring jumbo coils of Hot Rolled (HR) Steel and have been engaging themselves in the activities of de-coiling, cutting, and slitting of HR steel coils and pickling and oiling the same.

The department is of the view that since the processes do not amount to manufacture as clarified in the Board's Circular 811/08/2005- CX dated 02.03.2005, there is no question of the assessee availing Cenvat credit and paying Excise duty.

Income Tax

Settlement Commission has not considered huge undisclosed income – imposes a token penalty – No true and full disclosure – matter remanded to Settlement Commission – High Court

In view of the facts and the legal position even though the respondents had not made full and true disclosure of their income while making applications under Section 245C , it would not be proper to set aside the proceeding. However, at the same time, the Commission appears to have misdirected itself on several important aspects while passing the final order. Taking into consideration the multiple disclosures and the fact that the respondents had failed to make true and full disclosure initially as well as at the time of second disclosure, no justifiable reasons to reduce or waive the amount of penalty so drastically. Impugned orders dated 29.1.1999 passed by the Settlement Commission are set aside and all the proceedings are remanded.

Customs

Refund of excess duty paid – Nothing on record to suggest that the duty is paid under protest to attract the provisions of proviso to Section 27(1)(b) of Customs Act – No reason to interfere with order of Single Judge – High Court

The appellants, M/s Tamilnadu Steel Tubes Ltd had paid excess Customs duties of Rs. 20.67 lakhs over and above what was required to be paid by them. After failing in their attempts to secure refund from the lower authorities, the appellants approached the High Court by filing Writ Petitions. The petitions were however dismissed by a Single Judge but appellants were granted liberty to approach the authorities with a written representation to re-consider the matter.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements