Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Whether CENVAT credit can be denied on short receipt of inputs – there is no hard and fast rule - prescribes various factors to be considered for allowing / disallowing the credit in each case – CESTAT LB

THE scheme of allowing credit on the inputs was introduced in the year 1986 and even after nearly 24 years, there is no uniform view on the important issue of whether the assessee has to restrict the credit to the actual receipt of the inputs into the factory or full credit can be availed. Raising audit objections and demanding credit on short receipt of the inputs is a routine matter with the department. In many cases, there will be difference of weight between the quantity mentioned in the invoices and the actual quantity received in the factory because of various reasons like the weighing on different weigh bridges, transit / evaporation / handling losses. The demands are routinely confirmed, leaving the matter to the CESTAT.

Income Tax

Settlement Commission cannot remand – After Commission passes an order no power vests in assessing authority or any other authority to issue notice for period and income covered under settlement: High Court

AFTER passing of the order by the Settlement Commission, no power vests in the assessing authority or any other authority to issue impugned notice in respect of the period and income covered under the order of the Settlement Commission. In case of fraud or misrepresentation of facts, remedy is to approach the Settlement Commission. The Settlement Commission, by para 7 of its order, has not and could not have empowered the income tax authorities to frame another assessment order, while settling the undisclosed income of the petitioner for the period covered by its order, in respect of investment in bonds etc.

Customs

smuggling of Gold – Opening seals for publicity before media and resealing causes no prejudice to accused - Conviction upheld: Delhi High Court

THE drawing up of panchnama dated 10.10.1991 which was the display of the case property through the T.V. Media to the public at large was not a necessary fact which had to be put up before the sanctioning authority. It did not in any manner relate to the gist of the offence for which the petitioner was being charged; the gist of the offence being the recovery of 360 gold biscuits from the car of the petitioner; its subsequent recovery and seizure as described and detailed in the panchnama dated 9.10.1991 was what was relevant and was duly put up before the sanctioning authority. The sanction suffers from no infirmity.

See our columns Monday for the judgements