Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Revenue is under obligation to share material evidence with assessee which was basis for issue of warrant of authorisation and search & seizure: HC

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether Revenue is under obligation to share the material evidence with the assessee which was the basis for issuance of warrant of authorisation and the search and seizure; Whether a judicial precedent of the High Court of showing such confidential documents to the assessee can be said to jeopardize the future search & seizure; Whether the confidentiality of the information by itself can be a ground to claim privilege and Whether the fact that the major portion of the quantum has been decided by the ITAT against the assessee, the department can be allowed to retain the seized assets on the ground that the department does not have the power to divide the assets in proportion of the ITAT order and also that the department is filing appeal against the ITAT order for part relief granted to the assessee.

Customs

Anti Dumping on Carbon Black - D.A. has given his final findings after a detailed investigation and due examination with regard to existence of dumping, injury and causal link between two - No reason to interfere: CESTAT

THE D.A. has taken all pains to examine all relevant factors and has come to a finding on the strength of data made available to him, which he has separately analyzed to come to a finding on the existence of dumping, the injury to the D.I. and causality between the two. He has also kept in view that imposition of anti-dumping duties would not restrict imports from the subject countries nor it would affect the availability of the impugned product to the consumers.

Service Tax

Photography service cannot be termed as ‘Consulting Engineer service' - Service provided in Pune, demand cannot be made in Sangli: CESTAT

THE appellant is actually providing the services of photography and that cannot be termed as the services of “Consulting Engineering Services”. Moreover, the service has been provided by the respondent at Pune, therefore, it cannot be said that as the client is based in Sangli and they provided the services at Sangli and they required to get registered in Sangli as the appellant is registered at Pune and having office at Pune only. Therefore, the Asst. Commissioner, Central Excise, Sangli has no jurisdiction

Central Excise

Principle of limitation for demanding principal amount also applicable for recovery of interest: CESTAT

THE Apex Court in SKF India Ltd did not consider the aspect of limitation while holding that interest was liable to be paid on differential duty in supplementary invoices. In view of this, the impugned order demanding interest beyond the limitation period was set aside and appeal of the appellant allowed.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements