Jurisprudentiol – Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Petitioner having failed to exercise option of redemption granted to him, title to seized gold vested absolutely in Union Government and no fault can be found in action that was pursued of selling the confiscated property - Petition filed after 18 years - Dismissed: HC

ON 17th February 1989 the Collector of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai passed an order by which gold ornaments seized from the Petitioner were confiscated under Section 71 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The Collector permitted redemption on the payment of a redemption fine of Rs.75,000/- and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs.40,000/-. By an order dated 7 April 1993 the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs.40,000/- and the personal penalty to Rs.20,000/-.

After nearly eighteen years, on 23rd August, 2011, the petitioner made a representation to the department for return of the sale proceeds of the gold after adjusting the government dues.

Income Tax

Whether for purpose of computation of capital gains u/s 50C on sale of industrial galas, expenses like licence fees and property tax paid in advance do not form part of cost of such asset - YES: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether for the purpose of computation of capital gains u/s 5OC on sale of industrial galas, the expenses like licence fees, property tax paid in advance do not form part of cost of such asset and Whether if the deposits and expenses are not treated as a part of the cost of the industrial galas, in such circumstances these deposits and expenses will have to be allowed as business loss as these deposits and expenses paid in advance are required to be allowed as revenue expenses on closure of the unit. And the verdict goes against the assessee.

Central Excise

Officers of department have no respect for orders passed by Tribunal and they are following their own law, which results in unnecessary litigation before Tribunal: CESTAT

THE action of both authorities, i.e. adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) are not appreciable. Moreover, when there is no direction for re-adjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals), and appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is pending before this Tribunal, the adjudicating authority dared to pass the impugned order. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has also not bothered about the stay of operation of the order dated 21.8.2009 by this Tribunal. This shows that the officers of the department have no respect for the orders passed by this Tribunal and they are following their own law which results in unnecessary litigation before this Tribunal. In this case, till disposal of the appeal against the order dated 21.08.2009 by this Tribunal, the litigation could have been avoided but both the lower authorities chose to continue unnecessary litigation. The action of both the lower authorities is not appreciable at all.

See our Columns Monday for the judgements