Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Section 11D - Applicable even on amount collected as representing duty by depot though depot is not liable to pay any excise duty: CESTAT

SUB-Section (1) of Section 11D is to the effect that person who is liable to pay the duty under this Act has collected any amount in excess of duty paid, such excess collection represented as duty of Excise, is required to be paid to the Revenue. Simple and plain interpretation of the above provision implies that the Section provides for payment of such excess amount collected as duty of Excise, without going into the economics of the contract price or the fact as to whether such excess amount was profit element of the price or not. The language of said Section is un-ambiguous and no legislative intent is required to be read into.

Income Tax

Sec 132A - Whether when Revenue receives police information about seizure of cash and silver, it is justified in issuing search warrant, treating seizure as undisclosed assets - YES, says High Court

THE issue before the Bench is - Whether issue of warrant of authorization on the basis of information from police authorities is justified on part of Revenue on the reasoning that it had reason to believe that cash and silver which were seized by the police authorities represented undisclosed assets. And the High Court's answer is YES.

Service Tax

Refund - Assessee forced to pay tax - tax deemed to be paid under protest - Claim not barred by limitation: High Court

THE payment made by the assessee was not voluntary and was forced to make the said payment. In such circumstances, the said payment can only be construed as one made under protest. When once the said conclusion based on the above facts are inevitable, then the second proviso to sub section 1 of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, automatically comes into play. Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal in having held that the first respondent made the payment under protest was well justified and the order of the Tribunal in holding that the application made by the first respondent/assessee for refund of the payment made in its application dated 18.08.2006 cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation.

See our columns Monday for the Judgements