Jurisprudentiol - Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Export Valuation - The initial burden to establish that value mentioned by exporter is incorrect lies on Revenue. Neither Commissioner nor CESTAT dealt with the matter as per procedure prescribed under Act: Supreme Court

IT is settled that the procedure prescribed under Section 14(1) of the Act and particularized in Rule 4 of the 1988 Rules has to be adopted to determine the value of goods entered for exports, irrespective of the fact whether any duty is leviable or not. ……… At the threshold, instead of first determining the value of the goods on the basis of contemporaneous exports of identical goods, the Revenue erroneously resorted to a market enquiry.

Income Tax

Whether where notice u/s 148 is rightly issued but not served on assessee due to address-change and a copy of same is given before passing reassessment order but no objection raised, assessment made under Sec 147 can still be treated as bad in law - NO, says Delhi High Court

THE issue before the High Court is - Whether where the notice u/s 148 is rightly issued but is not served on the assessee due to the address change, and a copy of the same is given before passing the assessment order and no objection is raised by the assessee during the reassessment proceedings regarding non-service of notice u/s 148, the assessment made u/s 147/143(3) can still be treated as bad in law. NO is the High Court's answer.

Central Excise

Central Excise - Cess on Crude Petroleum -OID Cess to be collected on the basis of receipt in refinery - In case of difference, entitled to refund - No unjust enrichment: CESTAT

THE question of unjust enrichment does not arise since as per the MOU, cess is not supposed to be passed on and in this case, the quantity received was to be finalized by mutual understanding between the two parties and therefore neither of the parties to the dispute can be said to have passed on the liability. Therefore, the initial burden of proving that there was no unjust enrichment in the transaction can be said to have been discharged by the respondent and it for the department to show that there was unjust enrichment.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements