Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Motor vehicle body built on chassis supplied by Tata Motors - Valuation should be under Rule 10A of Valuation Rules, 2000 - Sales Tax amount paid needs to be deducted from value - Penalty not imposable as dispute relates to valuation of goods - Appeals disposed of: CESTAT

THE short issue is that the appellant is a registered manufacturer of Tipper Bodies/dumper falling under Chapter sub heading 8704 10 90 of the CETA'85 on chassis supplied by automobile manufacturers. Incidentally, Chapter note 5 to chapter 87 treats such body builders as manufacturers of motor vehicles by deeming fiction.

Revenue is of the view that the valuation of these "motor vehicles" manufactured on job work on behalf of the principal manufacturer should be in terms of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 w.e.f 01.04.2007.

So, the value of these "motor vehicles" at the job worker's end for discharge of Central Excise duty is now supposed to be the transaction value at which the principal manufacturer [Tata Motors] sells these goods to be unrelated buyer.

Income Tax

Whether there is anything in Section 147, which prohibits reopening of assessment completed u/s 143(1) on ground that assessee failed to furnish primary facts fully and truly - NO: HC

THE petitioner is a law firm specialising in intellectual property and corporate laws and was founded in 1827 by one Henry Oliver at Calcutta. In the year 1957 certain Englishmen took over the firm. By deed dated 04.04.1973 these gentlemen by names Holloway and Silver Stone transferred the firm absolutely to Dr. V. Sagar, a lawyer. The transfer took effect from April, 1973 and the entire practice of the firm became that of Dr. Sagar. On 18.10.2000 a company, i.e. Remfry & Sagar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated and one of its objects was that the goodwill of the firm Remfry & Sagar would vest in it in perpetuity. On 01.06.2001, Dr.Sagar executed a gift deed by which the goodwill of the name “Remfry & Sagar” was transferred to the private limited company. In the return of income filed by the petitioner for the AY being 2002-03, it claimed the payment made to the company under the licence agreement as revenue expenditure, which was processed u/s 143(1) and the deduction was allowed.

SEZ/Customs

Charges against Petitioner are serious involving fraudulent claim of duty drawback but that does not obviate the need to comply with either principles of natural justice or for that matter need for Appellate Authority to write proper reasoned order - proceedings restored back to Development Commissioner, SEEPZ for passing fresh order in accordance with law: HC

A show-cause notice dated 10.08.2004 was issued to the petitioner by the Development Commissioner based on the report submitted by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur.

The Show-cause notice expressly referred to the same thus -

“This Show Cause Notice is issued on the basis of the report submitted by the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur and also is without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against you under any other Law for the time being in force in the Union of India.”

The petitioner had sought a copy of the said “report” but it was not given to him.

Tomorrow is a Holiday

See our Columns Monday for the judgements