Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Petition for de-freezing of Bank account frozen by the DRI during investigation of evasion of customs duty - Bank Account is neither goods nor currency for purpose of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Petitioner is not entitled for unconditional de-freezing of Bank account: HC

SECTION 110(3) of the Act deals with seizure of the documents or things which in the opinion of the proper officer would be relevant to any proceedings under the Act. Freezing of the bank account, will not be seizure of any document or thing useful or relevant to any proceedings under the Act. Rather freezing of the account was only with a view to stop the Petitioner from withdrawing the proceeds of the alleged violations under the Act.

In this view of the matter, since the freezing of the bank account, was not seizure of the ‘goods' as envisaged under Section 110 of the Act, the Petitioner is not entitled to de-freezing of the bank account unconditionally. It is therefore, directed that the amount deposited in Bank Account, after the date of freezing the account shall be released, subject to furnishing of a Bank guarantee.

Income Tax

Whether when Revenue does not find any corroborative evidence during Search, any addition strictly made on basis of un-retracted statement recorded u/s 132(4) is legally sustainable - YES: HC

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether depreciation in case of a rented building can be claimed as business expenditure u/s 32; Whether voluntary disclosure of an assessee made u/s 132(4) can be rejected in case, revenue has not filed any corroborative evidence against it; Whether the income assessed under Chapter 14B can be included in the regular assessment of any previous year included in the block period; Whether penalty can be imposed under Section 271 (c) where undisclosed income is determined under Chapter 14B and Whether the possibility of penalty can be a reason to require that it can be treated as undisclosed income only when the claim is found to be made deliberately. And the verdict goes against the assessee.

Central Excise

AED(T&TA) & AED(GSI) are being collected with certain objectives and are required to be accounted for under that head and also used for that purpose - In case credit of such duty is allowed to be used for duty liability of other type, quantum and purpose of collecting said duties will get defeated/distorted - accumulated credit of AED (T&TA) cannot be cross utilized for payment of duty relating to AED (GSI) and for payment of basic excise duty - Appeals disposed of: CESTAT

THE appellant had accumulated credit of AED (T&TA) as on 1.4.2000. In addition, certain credit of the said duty was availed during 1.4.2000 to 30.6.2001. This credit could not be utilized during the period of availment as the goods chargeable to AED (T&TA) were not cleared and hence duty liability was far less than the accumulated credit. The credit was, however, utilized during January 2003 to May 2003 for payment of Additional duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) [AED(GSI)] and also basic excise duty leviable under CEA, 1944.

The issue involved in the appeals before the Tribunal is whether accumulated credit of AED (T&TA) can be cross utilized for payment of duty relating to AED(GSI) and for payment of basic excise duty during January 2003 to May 2003.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements