Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Service Tax

Re-assessment of input services cannot be done at receiver's end – CESTAT

…UNDER the Modvat scheme, the assessee is entitled to the Modvat credit based on the classification already determined and the duty already paid at the suppliers' end. There is no provision in law under which at the receiving end where the Modvat credit is taken the jurisdictional authorities can change the classification and restrict the Modvat credit based on the classification which they think would be more appropriate

Income Tax

Currency notes of Rs. 42.5 lakhs seized by police in spite of requisition by Income Tax, Police hand over currency to claimant - By not complying with requisition, a grave illegality has been committed by concerned police officer. Money ordered to paid to Income Tax Department – High Court

THE learned Magistrate was not at all within his powers to order for handing over muddamal currency notes to the respondent when proceedings were initiated by the Department under Sec.132 of the Act. In view of Section 132 of the Act, it shall be the duty of the police authority to comply with requisition issued by the authorized officer of the Department. The police authority has no power to retain the muddamal or hand it over to the respondent No.2. It was incumbent upon him to have handed over muddamal to the Department for completion of proceedings initiated by it.

Customs

The consignment did not arrive in ship it was shown in the IGM, but arrived in another ship – IGM amended – Customs imposes penalty of about Rs. 15 lakhs – When the IGM was amended no question of discharging cargo under that IGM – High Court

THUS, in view of the fact that the IGM is amended, the very basis of the Order dated 19/3/2002 would not survive and consequently imposing penalty for non-discharge of the cargo would not survive. In other words, on cancellation of Item No.29 of the IGM, there is no question of discharging the cargo under Item No.29 of the IGM and consequently the question of penalising the petitioners for not discharging the cargo set out in Item No.29 of the IGM does not arise. In such a situation, the penalty imposed would become unenforceable.

See our columns Monday for the judgements