Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Even an allegedly void order is to be challenged within period of limitation – CESTAT

The party aggrieved by the invalidity of the order has to approach the Court for relief of declaration that the order against him is inoperative and not binding upon him. He must approach the Court within the prescribed period of limitation. If the statutory time limit expires the Court cannot give the declaration sought for.

Income Tax

If employees lease out their own premises to employer against rent and occupy same, whether they lose their HRA benefits - NO, says Tribunal

THE issue before the Tribunal is - if employees lease out their premises to their employer against rent and occupy the same, whether they lose their HRA benefits - Whether obligation falls on the employer to compute the value of perquisite for accommodation after adjusting the lease amount paid and what is left over should be treated as HRA benefit. NO, says the Tribunal.

Central Excise

M-seal is ‘other mastics' classifiable under heading 32.14 of CETA, 1985 and not 'Putty' - CESTAT

Holding that the impugned goods were classifiable as ‘Other mastics' and not covered under the notification 5/2001-CE(N.T) dated 01.03.2001, the order demanding duty for the earlier period viz. 1.4.01 to 28.2.2002 by assessing the goods under section 4A was held to be unsustainable and set aside. The appellants were also held to be eligible for consequential relief.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements