Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Export restrictions - Relevant date - In case of factory stuffing, presentation of goods before central excise officers for examination is relevant: HC

PROHIBITION on export of Casein vide Notification No 23 (RE-2010)/2009-2014 dated 18.02.2010 – The petitioner exercising the option of factory stuffing in terms of CBEC Circular No 60/2001-Cus dated 01.11.2001, submitted the consignments for examination by the jurisdictional central excise officers before imposing the restrictions - In terms of para 9.12 of Handbook procedures 2009-14, in case of change of policy provisions, the same shall not be applicable to the consignment already handed over to Customs for examination and subsequent exports up to Public Notice/Notification – Respondents are directed to allow the exports.

Interest Tax

Whether, if assessee fails to claim refund in income tax return itself, it is not entitled to such benefits - NO, it is entitled, rules HC

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether the assessee is not entitled to refund of taxes when the same is not claimed in the income tax return form itself; Whether only the income tax return Form and the not the annexures attached are relevant to decide the entitlement issue; and Whether the writ petition is maintainable to decide on the issue as to whether or not an asset is exigible to wealth tax under the provisions of Wealth Tax Act, 1957.

Central Excise

New argumentative novelty or submissions sparkling with creative ingenuity presented with high-pressure advocacy cannot undo or compel reconsideration of orders, if not challenged: CESTAT

IT is no one's case that the department has challenged the said order at any stage. In case of any grievance against the said order, nothing prevented the department to approach the higher fora. It is pertinent that new argumentative novelty or submissions sparkling with creative ingenuity presented with high pressure advocacy cannot undo or compel reconsideration of the orders, if not challenged. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case to the lower adjudicating authority unmindful to the fact that the power of remand of Commissioner (Appeals) has been taken away by the amendment of Section 35A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of MIL India Ltd.

Goods cleared under exemption notification No 6/2000 CE by following chapter X procedure – Provisions of Rule 57 CC are applicable: HC

THE appellant is engaged in manufacture of unmachined castings which are cleared on payment of duty. Some of the goods manufactured were cleared without payment of duty on the strength of CT 2 certificates issued by the purchaser. The purchaser company is authorized to obtain unmachined casting falling under Chapter No.73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act at nil rate of duty under Notification No.6/2000 CE for the manufacture of power driven pumps set primarily designed for handling water.

See our columns Monday for the judgements