Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Import of ‘Aircraft engine' under notification 21/2002-Cus - crucial condition violated -Pre-deposit ordered: CESTAT

THEdispute is in relation to an Aircraft engine which was imported in May, 2005 by Air India ltd. by claiming exemption under notification no. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.02 (sl. No. 347). As per the relevant entry, parts of aero plane, helicopter etc. could be imported for duty-free clearance subject to a condition (condition no. 67) which stipulated that the parts should be used for manufacture or servicing of aero plane, helicopter etc. Explanation to the said condition defined “parts” as including engines and engine parts. The Aircraft engine imported by the appellant was kept as such in their premises over a period of 2 years.

Income Tax

Tax deducted at source and deposited in Govt account on alleged interest accrued to IDBI - Can refund be claimed by deductor particularly when deductee has treated it as income liable to tax? - YES, rules Delhi HC

THE issue before the High Court is -Whether when no interest actually accrued to the deductee-bank which also did not treat it as income liable to tax, TDS paid on alleged interest can be claimed as refund by the deductor. High Court rules in favour of the assessee.

Central Excise

Condonation of Delay in filing applications for fixation of brand rate of duty drawback - Tribunal condones delay - No question of Law - Revenue Appeal Dismissed:

THE Tribunal having taken into consideration the facts as well as the spirit of the circular dated 9th March 2003, has passed the impugned order and it is not possible to say that the Tribunal has committed any legal error in condoning the delay that had occasioned in filing the application. In any case, the Tribunal has exercised its discretion and it being neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, the view adopted by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. The impugned order of the Tribunal does not give rise to any question of law as proposed or otherwise, much less, a substantial question of law.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements