Jurisprudentiol - Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Once the goods are held as not excisable there is no question of going into aspects of valuation – Revenue appeal dismissed: CESTAT

THE department has alleged that the appellant have indulged in under-valuation by clearing windows made out of R-series window channels as per the size of sliding windows and cleared the same in a dismantled/knocked down condition from their factory premises. The glass panes required for the windows were purchased and directly sent to the site where all parts were assembled in their respective positions.

Income Tax

Sec 28( va ) - Whether compensation received on termination of Joint Venture with non-resident is capital receipt - NO, it is revenue receipt: ITAT

THE issue before the Tribunal is - Whether compensation received upon the termination of Joint Venture Company is a capital or a revenue receipt. And the Tribunal's verdict goes in favour of Revenue.

Customs

There is nothing in section 112(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the mandatory lower-limit for imposition of penalty – Commissioner's order imposing a penalty of Rs.2000 /- against a duty confirmation of Rs . 2500/- is legal and proper: CESTAT

THE respondent imported a consignment of mobile phones. The department alleged mis -declaration of value against the respondent and accordingly proceedings were initiated. The Commissioner of Customs confirmed the differential duty of Rs . 2,500/- and imposed a penalty of Rs . 2,000/- against the respondent. Revenue has challenged the imposition of penalty amount on the ground that as per Section 112 (iii) the penalty should not be less than Rs . 5,000/- if the differential duty is less than Rs . 5,000/-.

See our columns Monday for the judgements