Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Prosecution - DRI takes 15 years to produce pre-charge evidence - Charge framed in 2006; evidence yet to be completed - DRI is taking its action at its own will, without realizing importance of time - every accused has a right to have an expeditious disposal of his trial - Cost imposed on DRI not to be given to accused: HC

THERE is no dispute about the fact that every accused has a right to have an expeditious disposal of his trial. This is now a Fundamental Right guaranteed to an accused person under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the Prosecution was initiated by the petitioner in the year 1991 and more than two decades have gone by and still the Prosecution has not been able to conclude its evidence. If these things are permitted to be done at the pace at which the Prosecuting Agency wants to do, then it will take at least another decade for the accused to face the trial. This is totally unacceptable. Even if seen from the angle that the charge was framed against the respondents way back in 2006, and since then more than five years have elapsed, still the evidence of the petitioner has not been completed. DRI has filed the present petition after a delay of almost eight months, which clearly shows that the petitioner is taking its action at its own will, without realizing the importance of time.

Income Tax

Whether merely because panchnama mentions name of assessee also, it proves that warrant of authorisation was issued, and block assessment is valid - YES, rules Delhi HC

A SEARCH u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 21.11.1996, pursuant to the warrant of authorization. Thereafter, the block assessment order dated 28.11.1997 u/s 158BC of the Act for the period ending 21.11.1996 was passed in the case of the assessee. One of the grounds raised by the assessee before the Tribunal was that the warrant of authorization did not include and mention the name of the assessee and therefore, the block assessment proceedings u/s 158BC were invalid and illegal for the want of jurisdiction as only the assessee who had been searched could be subjected to the said procedure. For other persons, the procedure u/s 158BD had to be adopted and the said procedure was not followed in the present case.

Central Excise

Manufacture - blending of MS with MFA does not result into manufacture of new product, even if emerged product is branded as 'speed' and marketed after some value addition: CESTAT

THE Commissioner of Central Excise, confirmed the duty including cess of Rs. 15,26,92,645.00 and imposed equivalent penalty, observing that the process of blending of MS with MFA results into a product called as 'speed' having different physical and chemical characteristics, nomenclatures and uses. The said new product is not only costlier to the normal MS but is more efficient in its utility also. He has reasoned that addition of MFA increases the adequacy of fuel system, cleanliness and performance of engines. Finally, he has concluded that 'speed' is a distinct manufactured product in terms of Section 2(f)(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly liable to duty.

See our columns Monday for the judgements