Jurisprudentiol - Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Notfn. 97/2004-Cus – Import of ‘catalyst' as consumables – amending notfn. 72/2007-Cus omitting the term ‘consumables' from the benefit of exemption – as ‘catalysts' are separately mentioned in addition to consumables in the EPCG scheme for existing plant and also separately mentioned in the definition of capital goods under the Foreign Trade Policy, prima facie merit in contention of applicant on merit as well as time bar – Pre-deposit of Rs.49 crores waived and stay granted: CESTAT

THE applicant imported ‘catalysts' and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 97/2004-Cus as amended. The goods were cleared by granting the benefit of the Notification as the applicant was having valid licence under the EPCG scheme issued by the DGFT.

Income Tax

Income tax - Whether once AO changes mind after taking approval for special audit u/s 142(2A), it needs to invite fresh objections from assessee if AO wants to propose fresh special audit - YES: Delhi HC

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when the AO dropped the opinion originally formed for special audit u/s 142(2A) and there is nothing on record to show that there was any fresh development compelling the AO to change his mind and come to the conclusion that ‘certain complexities have been noted in the accounts of the assessee’, proposal approved for special audit is not valid; Whether it is incumbent on the AO to issue another show-cause notice to the assessee u/s 142 (2A), after he changed his mind and proposed special audit and invite the assessee's objections and Whether when as per records, there is no application of mind by the CCIT before granting approval to the proposal for special audit sent by the AO to him, the approval granted by the CCIT for special audit is of no effect and is a nullity. And the verdict goes in favour of the assessee.

Central Excise

Actions of the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority show a design to refuse the refund under one pretext or the other - It is obnoxious that such action has the approval of two adjudicating authorities and two different officers at the level of Commissioner and speaks volumes about the state of affairs – Appeal allowed: CESTAT

IN some Central Excise formations, harassment of an assessee takes alarming proportions so much so that the assessee either complains to the CVC or just shifts his business from one place to another. The recently appointed Ombudsman mechanism is what he is probably not aware of...and obviously so because there is not much publicity in the media and even the department does not seem to be that interested in letting outsiders know!