Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Skip Loader for collection and carrying city garbage stored in specially designed containers placed on road is a Special purpose vehicle classifiable under heading 87.05 and entitled for benefit of exemption notification 6/2000-CE – Revenue appeal rejected: CESTAT

Holding that the vehicle in question is a Special Purpose Vehicle classifiable under Chapter heading 87.05 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and is eligible for the benefit of exemption notification 6/2000-CE, the Revenue appeal was rejected.

Income Tax

Sections 245C, 245D - Whether an application u/s 245C of the Act before the Settlement Commission can be allowed when the assessee has previously failed to make a true and fair disclosure of the income - Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to quash the order of the Settlement Commission which had wrongly entertained an application of the assessee.

A "full and true" disclosure of income, which had not been previously disclosed by the assessee, is a pre-condition for a valid application u/s 245C (1). Moreover the scheme of Chapter XIX-A does not contemplate revision of the income so disclosed in the application. In the scheme of Chapter XIX-A, there is no stipulation for revision of an application filed u/s 245C(1) and thus the natural corollary is that determination of income by the Commission has necessarily to be with reference to the income disclosed in the application filed under the said Section in the prescribed form;?

Customs

Import of Hard Disc Drives - Decision of the Apex Court which is later in point of time would prevail according to the established canons of judicial precedent and consequently the respondent seems to have a prima facie case for the benefit of the notification 6/2006-CE – Stay application filed by Revenue dismissed: CESTAT

Each side is supported by decisions of this Tribunal upheld by the Apex Court. That decision of the apex court which is later in point of time would prevail according to the established canons of judicial precedent and consequently the respondent seems to have a prima facie case for the benefit of the notification. In this scenario, we are unable to stay the operation of the appellate Commissioner's order granting such benefit to the respondent. This application is dismissed.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements