Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

Customs

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Import of Toyota car - When there is a cloud in documents produced, Tribunal had rightly refused to accept the same - order of Tribunal based on its factual finding need not be interfered with especially when Revenue has not placed any other material to contradict such factual findings - Revenue Appeal dismissed: High Court

A Toyota HI LUX SURI car was imported and cleared under a Bill of Entry dated 21.1.1998.

On a specific intelligence that the said car was imported using false documents and was being used by one Abdul Razak, the DRI, Calicut directed Abdul Razak to produce the vehicle before them. On 22.2.2000, Abdul Razak produced the said vehicle and he was also subjected to a detailed examination. Consequently, the vehicle was seized under a Mahazar on the reasonable belief that the same was imported in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act 1962. By an order dated 12.10.2004 the Tribunal set aside the order of the lower authorities and so the Revenue is before the High Court.

Income Tax

Whether for purpose of provisions of Sec 50C, valuation of sold plot of land can be modified if it is a distress sale - NO: ITAT

THE assessee had sold a portion of the land of its factory property for a consideration of Rs.2,22,64,409/ which was as per the sale deed. At the same time, the guideline value adopted by the registering authority was Rs.3,95,91,000/-. In the computation of LCTG the assessee adopted the consideration at Rs.2,22,64,409/-. But, the AO held that the guideline value of Rs.3,95,91,000/- must be adopted. The (DVO) valued the property at Rs.3,54,73,536/- But the Valuation Report was not available before completing the assessment. The AO completed by adopting the guideline value of Rs.3,95,91,000/-. The CIT(A) determined the consideration at Rs.2.25 crores.

Central Excise

Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - CENVAT credit - Services utilized for erection and installation of Ammonia Storage Tank at port are Input Services: High Court

IT would be farfetched to interpret Rule 2(l) to mean that only two categories of services in relation to inputs viz. for the procurement of inputs and for the inward transportation of inputs were intended to be brought within the purview of Rule 2(l). Rule 2(l) must be read in its entirety. The Tribunal has placed an interpretation which runs contrary to the plain and literal meaning of the words used in Rule 2(l). Moreover, whereas Rule 3(1) allows a manufacturer of final products to take credit of excise duty and service tax among others paid on any input or capital goods received in the factory of manufacture of the final product, insofar as any input service is concerned, the only stipulation is that it should be received by the manufacturer of the final product.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements