Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Income tax - Recovery u/s 226 - Order of attachment only places restrictions in dealing with property and does not authorise encashment of fixed deposits: Allahabad HC

A search and seizure u/s 132 was conducted on the business and the residential premises of 'P' who was the proprietor of a firm and was engaged in money lending business. During the aforesaid search jewellery worth Rs. 34.33 lakhs was seized. P on 16-09-03 applied for release of the aforesaid seized jewellery on the ground that the same belonged to third parties and was in custody of the firm as pawned articles. The CIT vide order dated 07-11-03 directed the assessing authority to release the same on Bank Guarantee of Rs. 34,00,000/- for a period of one year subject to renewal. P offered certain fixed deposits of the petitioners which were with the Bank as security for furnishing Bank Guarantee.

Central Excise

Adjudicating authority imposing penalty on buyers of goods under rule 25 whereas SCN invoked rule 26 - Commissioner(A) holding that no penalty is liable to be imposed under rule 25 and allowing appeal – Appellate authority did not care to read tenor of OIO – Non-application of mind – Matter remanded: CESTAT

A demand of Central Excise duty was raised on M/s Finolex Industries Ltd. by denying them the benefit of exemption Notification 3/2004-CE in respect of PVC pipes cleared. One of the conditions attached to the notification was that a certificate from the Collector of the Revenue District where the pipes were intended to be used in the execution of water supply scheme should be obtained through the buyer of the goods. The PVC pipes in question were sold to the respondents, who obtained such certificates from the District Collector and furnished to the manufacturer of PVC pipes (M/s Finolex Industries Ltd.), who, on the strength of such certificates, effected duty-free clearance of the pipes by availing the benefit of the above notification.

Customs

Import of Chrysler Sedan modified in New Zealand – vehicle is required to be assessed in form it is presented – neither the Appraiser nor Commissioner have expertise to certify seating capacity – failure to produce Type Approval Certificate – redemption fine and penalty reduced – Vehicle to be released after obtaining undertaking: CESTAT

THE appellant filed a Bill of Entry for import of a CHRYSLER 300C SEDAN RHD car and claimed that as the vehicle had a seating capacity of 12 persons including Driver, the same is classifiable under CTH 8702 90 99 attracting Basic Customs Duty of 10%. Incidentally, the car imported by the appellant was a modified version and in its original version without any modification, the seating arrangement had a capacity of less than 10 and would have attracted BCD of 60%. The car was imported from US WORLD DIRECT, USA and modified in New Zealand .

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements