Jurisprudentiol - Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Goods manufactured under Area based exemption and exported under rebate - Amendment on 17.9.2007 to Notification No.19/2004, to disallow rebate - Rebate is not admissible though goods were cleared from factory before amendment, since actual export took place after amendment: HC

THE appellant is a manufacturer in Kutch availing the Area based exemption under Notification No.39/2001 dated 31.7.2001. The dispute in the instant case is whether the amendment made on 17.09.2007 to Notification No 19/2004 to disallow rebate on goods manufactured under area based exemptions is applicable for goods cleared before 17.09.2007, but exported after the amendment. The appellant contended before the High Court that once the goods were cleared for export from the factory of the petitioner, right to claim rebate accrued. Such accrued right cannot be affected by any subsequent change in the Exemption scheme. The amendment Notification dated 17.9.2007 would not adversely affect the petitioner's claim of rebate on goods manufactured and cleared from the factory for export before such date.

Income Tax

Whether Sec 80C benefits can be availed even if insurance premium is paid by a relative on behalf of beneficiary - YES: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether Sec 80C benefits can be availed even if insurance premium is paid by a relative on behalf of the beneficiary and whether the provisions of present Section 80C are different from the earlier provisions where the Section had specified that the deduction was available only if the payment was made out of the income chargeable to tax. And the verdict goes in favour of the assessee.

Customs

Seized diamonds - appellant has been able to prove bona fide purchase of seized diamonds and hence appeal was allowed with consequential relief - since diamonds not returned even after one year, Commissioner has to file affidavit intimating action taken and if no action was taken, Commissioner to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated: CESTAT

THE Ld. DR is not able to clarify the position about the action taken by the department pursuant to the order passed by this Tribunal. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai directed to file a written affidavit intimating the action taken by the department in pursuance of the order dated 14/02/2012 passed by this Tribunal.In case, no action has been taken, the Commissioner has to explain why no action has been initiated in pursuance of the said order. Non-compliance of the order passed by this Tribunal will attract consequence of contempt.

See our Columns Monday for the judgements