Jurisprudentiol – Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Classification - 'Non-alloy steel melting scrap consisting of skull' - Falls under 72.04: HC

THE Revenue is on appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, raising the following substantial question of law:-

"In view of the evaluation by chemical analysis of the subject goods by the scientists of NML had proved the presence of "slag" and "skull scrap" in the consignment samples tested as per the Inspection Report on the basis of which the goods came under Chapter 26 of the Customs Tariff Act Heading 2619 which ultimately confirmed the requirement of specific license for import and the respondents failed to declare the same in the Bill of Entry, whether the conclusion arrived at in the Final Order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal not having expertise in the subject goods and chemical analysis report submitted by NML, would be legally enforceable and tenable?"

Income Tax

Whether contents of pen drive seized during a Search and its print-outs constitute good enough reasons to assume jurisdiction u/s 147 - NO: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether the contents of a pendrive seized during a Search and its printouts constitute good enough reasons to assume jurisdiction u/s 147 and make additions; Whether the reasons for reopening the assessment recorded on the basis of these contents can be held to be valid and Whether, for valid assumption of jurisdiction to frame a reassessment u/s 147, a proper and valid service of notice u/s 148 on assessee is mandatory requirement and violation thereof will result in quashing of the reassessment proceedings. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.

Service Tax

Distribution of IMFL and Beer - taxable under BAS - Earlier decisions of Tribunal not relevant in this case: CESTAT

THE appellant a Government of Rajasthan Undertaking, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is entrusted by the State Government with the business of purchase of IMFL and Beer (liquor) from manufacturers, transport of liquor to various depots of the appellant and for further sale thereon to various licensees (i.e. with the wholesale trade in liquor), with a view to regulate supply of liquor through conferring the exclusive privilege of purchase and sale in the wholesale thereof upon the appellant. As a consequence of the monopoly assumed by the State Government in this area and confirment of the privilege on the appellant, it is mandatory for all manufacturers/distilleries/suppliers to sell liquor in the State only through the canalising agency, namely the appellant.

Intelligence gathered by Revenue revealed that the appellant collected a commission of Rs. 45,06,33,440/- during the period 01.02.2005 to 31.08.2007 but failed to remit service tax amounting to Rs. 5,21,25,843 /-. Revenue assumed that the appellant had provided the taxable Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) to manufacturers of liquor/distilleries.

See our Columns Tuesday for the judgements