Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Rebate - appropriation of sanctioned rebate against dues to department - appropriation when stay application is pending before Tribunal is not sustainable in Law: CESTAT

DEPUTY Commissioner while sanctioning the rebate appropriated the same under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 towards dues pending from the appellant without putting the appellants to notice. The appropriation of the amounts when the appellant's stay application was pending before the Tribunal is not sustainable in law.

Income Tax

Whether when AO initiates reassessment proceedings after giving notice, AO's jurisdiction is restricted to reassess income only to extent of materials, which were basis for issuance of notice - NO, entire assessment: HC

ASSESSEEIS an NBFC, engaged in the business of sale and purchase of shares and financing. It showed a loss of Rs. 2.01 lakhs in share trading. Its assessment was reopened u/s 147 on the basis of the report of search operations conducted on certain accommodation entry providers. As per the report of Investigation Wing, assessee had received accommodation entry amount of Rs.5,08,687/- in the F.Y. 2000-01 under the garb of share application money/share capital/bogus gifts. Thus, the notice u/s 148 was rightly issued. As a result of reassessment, AO added the sum of Rs.1,10,896/-, being 2% of the total unexplained balance in the bank account, as income in the assessee's hands by way of commission on hawala entries.

Customs

Import of microprocessors intended for retail sale - goods are pre-packed and are required to be affixed with MRP as per DGFT notification 44 (RE-2000) - prima facie benefit of nil rate of Additional Customs duty in terms of notfn. 29/2010-Cus cannot be denied on ground that importer is claiming benefit of notfn. 6/2006-CE - Pre-deposit waived of 16.93 Crores and stay granted: CESTAT

THE applicant made imports of microprocessors meant for fitment inside CPU housing/Laptop body and claimed exemption from payment of additional duty of customs leviable under Section 3(1) of the CTA, 1975 in terms of Notf. no. 6/2006-C.Ex. and also claiming benefit of Notification No. 29/2010-Cus in respect of additional duty of Customs leviable u/s 3(5) of the CTA, 1975. The benefit of Notification No.29/2010-Cusis sought to be denied on the ground that since exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE at Sr. No. 17 is availed, it is evident that the goods are not meant for retail sale.

See our columns Monday for the judgements