Jurisprudentiol - Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Customs - Import of old and used Datagraphic Display Tubes - covered by Hazardous Waste Rules - Liable to confiscation and re-export: CESTAT

THE appellant imported a consignment declared to be of Datagraphic Display Tubes for clearance of which they filed a bill of entry. After assessment of duty and payment of the duty assessed, the goods were examined and were ordered to be cleared out of customs charge. However, at this stage, the consignment was stopped by the SIIB Officers who conducted 100% examination and on examination the goods appeared to be old and used.

Income Tax

Whether surrendered income has to be quantified on basis of incriminating material found during search or on basis of any other evidences collected during assessment proceedings - ruled against Revenue: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are -Whether addition made by the Assessing Officer merely on the basis of statement u/s 132(4) can be sustained in the absence of any evidence, material or recovery of any movable or immovable assets at the time of search to corroborate the disclosure made by the assessee and Whether the surrendered income has to be quantified on the basis of the incriminating material found during the search or on the basis of any other evidence collected during the assessment proceedings. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.

Service Tax

There is no mention of appellant anywhere in body of SCN and only at beginning name of appellant figures - entire proceedings are vitiated and order is not sustainable in law: CESTAT

IN the show cause notice, the demand for service tax has been made against M/s Ispat Industries Ltd. as the recipient of the services. There is no mention of the appellant anywhere in the body of the show cause notice and only at the beginning, the appellant's name figures. There is no demand from the appellant towards any service tax liability. In other words, there is no valid show cause notice against the appellant towards any service tax demand. Without issue of a notice, no order can be passed against the appellant. It is further noted that the appellant was not heard and personal hearing was granted only to the recipient of the service, M/s Ispat Industries Ltd. and after considering the submissions of M/s Ispat Industries Ltd. the demands were dropped against them and the same was confirmed against the appellant. Inasmuch as the appellant has not been put to notice, the entire proceedings are vitiated and consequently the order passed against the appellant is not sustainable in law.

See our Columns Wednesday for the judgements