Jurisprudentiol - Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Penalty under Section 11AC – Tribunal found no mens rea and held penalty was not liable – No substantial question of law – High Court

IN view of facts found, the liability of duty having been accepted, question before the Tribunal was only of levy of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act, for which mens rea was required under the statutory provision itself. The Tribunal having found that there was no mens rea , which finding was not shown to be perverse, no substantial question of law arises: Revenue Appeal Dismissed

Income Tax

Sec 28 - Forward contracts - allowability of losses arising out of fluctuation in foreign exchange rates - Date of maturity of contract is not relevant - assessee banker is entitled to claim deduction for losses: ITAT Special Bench

THE issue before the Special Bench of the Tribunal is - Whether in case of forward contracts the date of maturity of contract is not relevant and hence, the assessee which is a banker, is entitled for claims of losses resulting from fluctuation of foreign exchange in relation to contracts entered into with customers for purchase of foreign exchange at a future date. And the verdict is YES.

Customs

Mid sea smuggling of Diesel – Confiscation of Vessel – Tribunal's order reducing fine to Rs 5 Lakhs from Rs. 1 Crore upheld – High Court

THE Tribunal has noted from the records that the purchasers of the said unaccounted diesel had clearly stated that they were dealing with the Chief Engineer. The Chief Engineer is one of the employees responsible for maintaining accurate amount of diesel and shared the common responsibility of managing bunkers. The Tribunal has further noted from the order of the Adjudicating Authority that the Chief Engineer had kept the Master and Owners in the dark for his personal gain.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements