Jurisprudentiol - Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Since the goods under export have been proved to be basmati rice, as revealed on basis of RTI application filed by appellant with AGMARK authority, charge of mis-declaration of export goods is completely disproved - violation of Regulation 12 & 13 of CHALR is not established - order of Commissioner revoking CHA licence does not stand any legal scrutiny and is perverse and bad in law - Appeal allowed with consequential relief: CESTAT

THE appellant, a Custom House Agent holding CHA licence, filed four shipping bills on behalf of M/s. Chawla Trading Co., Nagpur, by declaring the goods as “basmati rice” as per the export documents such as invoices, packing list and original certificate issued by Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) provided by the exporter. The goods were received by the appellant at Navkar CFS, Panvel, directly from the suppliers of the exporter. After completion of the carting procedure, the shipping bills were presented before the Superintendent of Customs for inspection of goods for issuance of Let Export Order (LEO).

Representative samples were drawn from the consignments for further inspection and the Custom Officers made endorsements to the effect that the samples should be forwarded to AGMARK for testing and shipment may be allowed, if otherwise, in order.

Income Tax

Whether CA's expert advice can be cited as bona fide reason for claiming false deduction, and thus no penalty is leviable - NO: ITAT Third Member

THE issues before the Third Member are - Whether expert advice by the assessee's CA can be cited as bona fide reasons for claiming false deduction and hence penalty cannot be levied in such circumstances and Whether Third Member can sit in judgment over dissenting member's view. And the answer goes against the assessee.

Central Excise

Credit of Service Tax for three years was taken by making one entry after lapse of time - said amount of CENVAT credit was not mentioned as receivable in books of accounts - it is necessary to ensure that eligible service received under various invoices have actually gone into manufacture of exported goods and not utilized for other purposes - pre-deposit ordered: CESTAT

THE applicant filed a refund claim under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 in respect of accumulated Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs/input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of exported goods on the ground that the applicants were unable to utilize the same.

The adjudicating authority allowed the refund and the applicant received the amount of refund. Revenue filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellate authority set aside the adjudication order and directed the applicants to deposit the erroneously sanctioned refund along with interest.

The facts leading to the refund claim are - the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of socks classifiable under heading 61 of the Central Excise Tariff, and the applicants had availed credit in respect of the duty paid/service tax paid on the inputs/input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods which were exported under bond. On 27.2.2007 applicant availed credit in respect of the service tax paid on the taxable services for the period 2004, 2005 and 2006 and filed a refund claim u/r 5 of CCR, 2004 in March 2007 for the quarter January 2007 to March 2007 claiming that they are unable to utilize the same.

See our columns Monday for the judgements