Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Recovery of dues - Adjustment from the refund amount - Section 11 of Central Excise Act - Section 11 does not provide for adjustment of monies due to assessee towards the amount due to the revenue: HC

WHEN once the adjudicating the authority has held that the assessee is entitled to refund of the amounts which he had paid to the Department in the absence of a specific provision authorising the revenue adjusting the said amount towards due to them, it is improper for them to make such adjustment.

NDPS

Imperative on part of empowered officer to apprise person intended to be searched of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate: SC

TO check the misuse of power, to avoid harm to innocent persons and to minimise the allegations of planting or foisting of false cases by the law enforcement agencies, it would be imperative on the part of the empowered officer to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right to be searched before agazetted officer or a Magistrate. The Court had no hesitation in holding that in so far as the obligation of the authorised officer under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is mandatory and requires a strict compliance.

Income Tax

Whether 'hospital' is an industrial undertaking for purpose of deduction u/s 32A - Whether deduction is also available for investment allowance in respect of medical equipment - YES, rules Madras HC

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether 'hospital' is an industrial undertaking for the purpose of deduction u/s 32A and whether deduction u/s 32A is available for investment allowance in respect of equipments such as X-ray, ultra sound, angiography, gamma camera, stress analysis equipment etc. And the High Court's answer is YES.

Customs

Objection on Jurisdiction should be raised at earliest stage; Person filing Bill of Entry is Importer:

A jurisdictional objection should be raised at the earliest stage of quasi-judicial proceedings. “Importer” as defined under Section 2 (26) of the Customs Act includes any owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer. In the present case, the appellant, by filing the Bills of Entry, held himself out to be the importer of the goods and, therefore, he is the importer for purposes of Section 28 of the Customs Act. Where the taxable event is “import”, the tax has to be paid by the importer. Therefore, the importer is the person chargeable with the duty on the goods imported and presented under the Bill of Entry.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements