Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Seizure of gold imported under Indo-Thailand Free trade Agreement - Show Cause Notice cannot be interfered with in writ - High Court

THE petitioner has imported gold jewellery classified under the customs tariff heading 711319 from Thailand duly supported by the original Certificate of Origin issued by the designated authority in Thailand. Governments of India and Thailand have entered into a Treaty called "Indo-Thailand Free Trade Agreement" under which certain specified goods can be imported from Thailand into India by Indian importers without having to pay the basic customs duty and countervailing duty. The Customs Department on a belief that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit, seized 12742.5 grams of gold jewellery valued at Rs.3.63crores from the petitioner and issued a Show Cause Notice proposing demand of duty, confiscation etc. The petitioner is before the High Court challenging the Show Cause Notice.

Income Tax

Whether when assessee is restrained by court from sale of factory land till labour case is settled, any advance taken from a real estate developer can be subjected to capital gains even before land user change permission is granted - NO: Bombay High Court

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when the assessee is restrained by the court from sale of the factory land till the labour case is settled, any advance taken from a real estate developer can be subjected to capital gains even before the land user change permission is granted by the municipal authorities and Whether when the assessee's Board had decided to treat the factory land as stock-in-trade, the same is to be treated as merely paper entry for lack of construction activities. And the answers go against the Revenue.

Service Tax

COD - Vacancy in government departments are well known and this cannot be a reason for non-filing of appeals where statutory time limits have been laid down - the reason stated is merely of bureaucratic red tape - COD applications and appeal rejected: CESTAT

IN the COD application it is stated that the delay in filing the above appeal was mainly due to vacancy in the position of Junior Manager (F&A) in the organization of the appellant during 01.07.2011 to 23.12.2011. It is further submitted that during 23.12.2011 to 31.07.2012 the Junior Manager looking into the legal affairs of the appellant did not have the requisite expert legal knowledge and therefore he did not take steps to challenge the order of the lower appellate authority. Only in November, 2012, another Junior Manager (F&A) joined and this Junior Manager apparently had the requisite knowledge to appoint a counsel and hence the delay.

The ground stated for the delay is not at all satisfactory to this Bench.

See our Columns Wednesday for the judgements