Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

When there is violation of conditions of Notification No. 13/81-Cus, demand of duty under section 28(1) and imposition of penalties under sections 112(a) and 114A justified: CESTAT

ONCE a benefit is extended to the assessee under a notification for discharge of ‘nil' duty and if the conditions therein were violated, it would amount to short levy which requires to be demanded only under section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962. Further, violation of conditions regarding import of goods would attract penalties under section 112(a) and 114A of Customs Act, 1962 in as much as the appellant could not produce appropriate reconciliation of materials imported duty free.

Income Tax

Whether when assessee makes payment from his own account for purchase of new house but gets same registered in joint name, exemption u/s 54F is not available on entire consideration paid - No, it is available: HC

SECTION 54F mandates that the house should be purchased by the assessee and it does not stipulate that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only. Objective of Section 54F and the like provision such as Section 54 is to provide impetus to the house construction and so long as the purpose of house construction is achieved, such hyper technicality should not impede the way of deduction which the legislature has allowed. Purposive construction is to be preferred as against the literal construction, more so when even literal construction also does not say that the house should be purchased in the name of the assessee only.

Central Excise

CENVAT Credit taken without receipt of inputs - Pre-deposit ordered: CESTAT

IT is clear that the goods have not reached the appellant's premises and have been diverted in-between and, therefore, the credit taken by the appellants without actually receiving the goods is a clear case of fraud. The appellant could not produce before the department even the consignees' copies of the transportation document. If they had actually received the goods, they should be in possession of the consignee's copy of the transport document which has not been produced by the appellant in the instant case. Thus, there appears to be very strong case against the appellants in the instant case.

See our columns Monday for the judgements