Jurisprudentiol - Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Release of vessel - Stay order passed by CESTAT was not only an order passed in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 129E of Customs Act, 1962 dispensing with requirement of depositing duty and penalty but also in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction as an appellate authority - Revenue appeal rejected: HC

YOU have to hand it to the Revenue to challenge the order of the Tribunal and get a stick in return!

The short facts of this interesting case go thus -

+ The Tribunal had passed an order dated 17.05.2013 wherein stay was granted and pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the appellant was waived and all further proceedings pursuant to the adjudication order was stayed subject to the appellant keeping the Bond for Rs.96,56,83,838/- and the Bank Guarantee for the duty demand of Rs.9,24,04,082/- alive.

+ The appellant complied with the said directions but the Customs Authorities were not permitting them to take the vessel out of India for executing certain urgent work.

Income Tax

Whether when CIT(A) has given detailed findings about project being 'foreign' in nature, Sec 80HHB benefits can be disallowed by mere cryptic order passed by Tribunal - NO: HC

THE assessee is engaged in assembly, reassembly, installation, renovation, continuous updating of machineries, plants, mechanical, electronic and air conditioning systems on board foreign vessels mostly while the vessel is sailing on high seas with the help of highly efficient, quality conscious and competent technicians approved for the class of vessels they are to work on with most modern computerised techniques. It could not file any evidence or document to show that there was any kind of project/contract with any foreign company except that it was engaged in supplying labourer on a particular project. Thus, the Tribunal disallowed deduction under Section 80HHB.

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when the CIT(A) has given detailed findings about the project being 'foreign' in nature, Sec 80HHB benefits can be disallowed by a mere cryptic order passed by the Tribunal and Whether such project work can be categorised as a mere repair and maintenance work. And the verdict favours the assessee.

NDPS

DRI fumbles on drug seizure - leave to appeal against the order of Trial Court refused - HC

THIS case can perhaps be used in NACEN to train the officers as how not to do a seizure, especially in proceedings under allied Acts like NDPS Act. It is sad to see a drug peddler walking scot free due to costly technical mistakes by the DRI. The Trial Court acquitted the accused on some serious technical grounds like the DRI had faked the documents, manipulated summon document and officer who seized the contraband had no authorization etc.

This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 14th February 2013 passed by Special Judge, NDPS in Sessions Case No. 18A/08 acquitting the Respondent of the offences under Sections 21 and 27A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act').

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements