Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Import of Car by carpenter - confiscation by Customs - Release by CESTAT - The view taken by Tribunal is absolutely perverse : High Court

THE Tribunal held that it was not necessary for the importer to prove his ownership or title to the vehicle during his stay abroad and that he need not be the owner of the vehicle for next two years after importation thereof during his stay in India. The view taken by the Tribunal is absolutely perverse. The Tribunal could not have taken such a perverse view running contrary to the public policy leading to the issuance of the public notice.

Commonsense or Law? Tribunal ought to have used its common sense that a person working as carpenter/labourer in Dubai could not have owned or imported vehicle, that too from Japan especially, in the light of his statement recorded under section 108 of the Act; wherein he has clearly admitted that his passport was misused by someone. It was clearly an attempt on the part of the Tribunal to adopt perverse approach.

Income Tax

Whether profits from sale of shares held as long-term investments are to be taxed as business income or capital gains? - It is capital gain, rules Delhi HC

THE issue before the High Court is - Whether profits from sale of shares held as long-term investments by an investment and finance company are to be taxed as business income or capital gains. And the High Court decision rules that it is capital gains.

Central Excise

When department has alleged that CENVAT credit has been taken wrongly, action cannot be termed as willful action of assessee - In that situation, intention to evade duty is absent – Penalty u/s 11AC of the CEA, 1944 not imposable: CESTAT

THERE is no doubt but to impose penalty Under Section 11AC, it is to be seen that how the payment of duty is evaded viz. by fraud, by collusion, by willful misstatement, by wilful suppression of facts or in contravention of provisions of the Act or Rules thereunder with intent to evade duty. From the facts of this case, it is clear that there was no fraud, no collusion, no willful misstatement. The allegation is only that they have suppressed the facts and contravened the provisions of law. From the fact of the case no where it is coming out that there is wilful suppression of facts as in the show-cause notice, in para 9 itself it is mentioned that "the said M/s D'damas had taken CENVAT credit in respect of input services wrongly without taking reasonable steps to ensure that appropriate duty on the input services had been paid."

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements