Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Professional broadcasting equipment for live telecast of Mumbai marathon – whether covered under category of sports goods and sports equipments – Condonation of delay - acceptance of explanation furnished should be rule and refusal an exception – COD allowed and matter remanded: CESTAT

ATHLETIC Federation of India, (AFL) the appellant had imported professional broadcasting equipment for live telecast of Bombay Marathon in the year 2007 and 2008. The appellant claimed the benefit of exemption under Sr.no. 1 of Notification 146/94 dated 13.7.94 which covers sports goods, sports equipment and sports requisites along with their spares, accessories and consumables. In the two impugned orders-in appeal passed, the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken a view that appellants are not eligible for exemption since the goods imported were broadcasting equipment and are not covered under the category of sports goods and sports equipment.

Income Tax

Prosecution - Tribunal's decision is not binding on Trial Court trying the case: Madras High Court

THE question before the High Court is - Whether for quashing prosecution proceedings u/s 245 of CrPC , sub- judice before the lower court it is mandatory to record evidence as per the provisions of section 244(1) of Cr.P.C . Whether the decision of the ITAT is binding on the trial court trying the case of prosecution. The answers to both the questions are NO

Central Excise

Even if statute provides for an appeal remedy, if principles of natural justice are violated, party aggrieved for such violation can invoke jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India: High Court of Madras.

THE petitioner is a manufacturer of Leather Die cutting Knives and is a sole proprietorship firm. The goods were sold to another sole proprietorship firm of her husband who in turn sold the knives to the buyers. Department demanded duty by adopting the price at which these goods were sold by the husband's firm. The Tribunal upheld the demand, but remanded the matter for re-computation of duty liability after extending the cum-duty benefit and CENVAT Credit. The rectification application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the CESTAT. Thus, the assessee is before the High Court.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements