Jurisprudentiol - Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Second stage dealer issuing CENVATable invoices in October, 2004 without physically supplying goods to manufacturer – Penalty u/r 25 of CER, 2002 not imposable: CESTAT

THE appellant obtained 10 invoices from a Delhi based dealer without receiving the goods physically. Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant as well as against the manufacturer who has availed the credit on the basis of the said invoices.

Income Tax

Stay - Is an order u/s 201(1A) a consequential order of Sec 201(1) and therefore, stay granted by Tribunal in regard to stay application against Sec 201(1) demand is equally applicable to demand u/s 201(1A)? - YES, says ITAT

THE issue before the Tribunal is - Whether an order under-section 201(1A) is a consequential order of section 201(1) and hence the stay granted by the ITAT in pursuance to a stay application against the demand of Sec 201(1) is equally applicable to section 201(1A) also.

Customs

Import of Wallets made of python skin - since in country of import it can be used freely, re-export allowed – redemption fine cannot be imposed: CESTAT

THE appellant imported various consumer items namely ball point pens, sunglasses, leather bags, wallets etc. and filed a bill of entry to clear the same. The wallets mentioned in the invoices were of Python skin for which the Wild Life Regional Office did not give NOC for their clearance holding that “Python reticulates” being mentioned in the Schedule-1 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 which is a prohibited item.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements