Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Common cenvatted inputs used for job work – no cause for payment of any amount under rule 6(3)(b) of CCR, 2004 – LB decision in Sterlite Industries clearly applies – job worked goods cleared to 100% EOU – rule 6(3)(b) of CCR, 2004 not applicable – CESTAT

IF you want to know as to how high Revenue cases are booked and confirmed and also dropped only to be appealed against by the Department, here is a classic case. The show cause notice also merrily shuttles between two diagonally opposite arguments but in the end demands Central Excise duty. Sadly enough for the Revenue, the end result is a big Zero in their accounts.

Income Tax

When opinion of AO was plausible, merely because the CIT was of different opinion could not be a ground to pass an order under Section 263 of Act – AO had passed rectification order even before CIT's Revision order – Revenue takes frivolous appeal to High Court - ends up paying costs of Rs. 25,000:

In the facts of the present appeal, it is not even necessary to into this question inasmuch as even as per the revisional order passed by the CIT under Section 263 of the Act, the benefit under Section 80-IA should have been restricted to Rs. 1962.55 lacs, which had been done by the AO by passing rectification order under Section 154 of the Act. Appeal dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000

Customs

Attachment of property – At the time of receipt of advance for property, even Department not aware of fraud – Property not attachable – High Court

If the money cannot be attached, the property which belongs to the respondent who is not a defaulter cannot be attached. The matter is self-evident. The issue has been pending in this Court since 2003. The property admittedly belongs to the respondent and would not be the subject matter of attachment under section 142(1)(c)(ii) on that.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements