Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Export duty on Non alloy steel - Instead of alleging that appellants had taken advantage of low percentage of boron to convert non-alloy steel to alloy steel, arrangements should have been made for proper determination of boron content with far greater accuracy as is being done in other countries - Confiscation of goods set aside: CESTAT

THE appellants wanted to export the impugned goods by declaring them as “alloy steel billets of prime quality”. There is no duty on export of goods out of India except in a few cases. In respect of “non-alloy steel, ingots or prime form”, export duty of 15% advalorem has been imposed vide Notification No.66/08-Cus. dt. 10.5.08. Appellant-exporter used to earlier export non-alloy steel only but since, after imposition of duty on such steel, they had filed the impugned shipping bills declaring the goods as alloy steel, a question has been raised as to whether there has been any misdeclaration to avoid export duty imposed on 10.5.2008.

Income Tax

Whether when Revenue, during a search, finds documents or assets belonging to another person, is it necessary for AO, as per Sec 153C, to conclusively show details of undisclosed income before AO proceeds with assessment - NO, rules Delhi HC

A search u/s 132 was conducted on ‘P' group. During the search proceedings, certain documents belonging to the assessee were found in the form of agreements. AO recorded a satisfaction note u/s 153(1) of the Act. Three agreements were found. The first agreement was between ‘P' and it associate concern and the assessee in the form of collaboration agreement. The next agreement was between the assessee and ‘E' in the form of assignment agreement. The third agreement was between ‘P' and ‘E' in the form of escrow agreement. As per these agreements, AO recorded the satisfaction that the assessee acquired development rights from ‘P' in respect of a land and subsequently transferred such rights in favour of ‘E' against which a consideration was received partly which was not considered as revenue.

Excise/Customs/ST

Postal authorities returning SCN/OIO as being ‘unclaimed' - Since delivery of the SCN as well as O-in-O was deliberately & intentionally avoided by appellant, contention that same has not been served is unsustainable - Appeal dismissed - Appellant making allegations of favouritism - SCN issued for initiation of contempt proceedings: CESTAT

AFTER passing of the order, the appellant made allegations against the Bench that the Bench is favouring the Revenue in the absence of any evidence. The Court feels that the act of the appellant is a contempt of Court. Accordingly, it issued show-cause notice as to why contempt of the Court proceedings shall not be initiated against the appellants.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements