Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Machinery for use in road construction - Notification no. 21/2002-Cus does not have any post-importation conditions to ensure fulfillment of terms of undertaking: CESTAT

PRIMA facie, the notification has only pre-importation conditions requiring an undertaking to be given at the time of import and also a certificate to be produced from the authorized government officials. The undertaking is required for use of the goods exclusively for the construction of roads and also not to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods for a period of five years. The offer made by the ld. counsel to pre-deposit an amount of Rs.22 lakhs against the machinery which is not in the control of the appellants and which was parted with by the appellants to the bank appears to be acceptable for the purpose of hearing the appeal.

Income Tax

Sec 69 - Whether where Tribunal's direction to AO while remanding matter is to examine evidence produced before CIT(A), AO is free to insist on submission of fresh evidence - NO, says ITAT

THE issue before the Tribunal is - Whether where Tribunal's direction to AO while remanding matter is to examine evidence produced before CIT(A), AO is free to insist on submission of fresh evidence. NO is the Tribunal's answer. The second question is - Whether where the assessee company has proved the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders, the assessee has discharged its onus. Yes is the answer.

Service Tax

Investigation has various shades of meaning and investigation in context of insurance claims cannot make service provided by appellants into security services – Appellant classifying their service as ‘insurance auxiliary service' proper - Matter remanded: CESTAT

THE lower appellate authority has not applied his mind, has not dealt with the issue and the points raised by the appellants and has not passed a speaking order. The appellants were clearly providing insurance auxiliary services to their clients who are insurance companies. The same cannot be categorized as security services by any stretch of imagination. The lower appellate authority brands the services provided by the appellants as security service because of a single word “investigation” appearing in the contract. He has failed to appreciate that investigation has various shades of meaning and investigation in the context of insurance claims cannot make the service provided by the appellants into security services.

See our columns Monday for the Judgements