Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

The classification that is beneficial to assesse should be allowed: SC

NO doubt there is a specific entry which speaks of Slagwool and Rockwool under Sub-heading No.6803.00, but there is yet another entry which is consciously introduced by the Legislature under sub-heading No.6807.10, which speaks of goods in which Rockwool, Slagwool and products thereof are manufactured by use of more than 25% by weight of blast furnace slag. It is not in dispute that the goods in question are those goods in which more than 25% by weight of one or more of red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag is used. If that be the case, then, in a classification dispute, an entry which is beneficial to the assessee requires to be applied

Income Tax

Whether when assessee was carrying on banking activities but its licence was cancelled after court decision, assessee would still be eligible to claim benefits of banking activities carried during winding up period - NO: ITAT

ASSESSEE is registered under Multi State Cooperative Societies Act 1984 and was subsequently notified by Govt. of Maharashtra as a State Cooperative Bank. The Reserve Bank of India also gave the assessee licence under the Banking Regulations Act, 1949, however on a petition of Maharstra Co-operative bank the High Court cancelled the status of assessee as bank and order of the High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court. In view of this backdrop the AO during the course of assessment proceedings denied the deduction of 80(P)(2)(i) to the assessee in respect of its banking activities - but allowed the deduction in respect of credit facilities to the assessee - CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee.

FERA

Foreign Exchange released by Money Changer in violation of RBI Instructions/FERA - Penalty upheld: HC

AS a Full Fledged Money Changer, the company is vested with custody of foreign exchange, which has to be disbursed to bonafide travellers. The contravention in the present case is of a serious nature since it is evident that foreign exchange was disbursed to persons who were not bonafide travellers as in the case of the first notice to show cause under the BTQ scheme and to bogus entities as in the case of the second notice to show cause under the Business Visit Scheme. The contravention is therefore of a serious nature and it was for the Appellants to establish by leading cogent evidence a defence within the meaning of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 68.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements