Jurisprudentiol - Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Valuation - s. 4A of CEA, 1944 - Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008 is curative provision to deal with situation where RSP is not declared or tampered with - they are entirely procedural in nature and, therefore, retrospective in nature and can be applied to all proceedings which are pending or which arise after rule has been introduced - CESTAT by Majority

ONCE the goods are specified under Section 4A(1) and there is a statutory requirement to declare RSP on the retail sale packages of the goods, the question of application of Section 4 would not arise at all. If that be so, it cannot be contended that the valuation of the goods have to be done under Section 4 of the Act and not under Section 4A.

If one carefully goes through the provisions of Section 4A and the Rules 2008 cited above, it can be seen that there is no determination of RSP envisaged in the legal provisions. The declaration of RSP is mandated by the provisions of the Packaged Commodity Rules and the Standards of Weights and Measures Act.

Income Tax

Whether deposits in PPF Account are immune from attachment for recovery of tax dues - YES: HC

THE assessee is assessed as an individual. The Assessee had opened a PPF account under the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968. From time to time, the Assessee went on depositing various amounts in the said account. The Tax Recovery Officer, issued a notice u/s 226(3) to the Branch Manager of SBI stating that a sum of Rs. 25,16,790/- was due from the Assessee to the I.T department. His PPF account was therefore attached u/s 226 (3) and the amount lying in the said account may be remitted to the Tax Recovery Officer.

The issues before the Bench are - Whether deposits in PPF Account are immune from attachment for recovery of tax dues and Whether Rule 10 of Schedule II of the I-T Act exempts all such properties from attachment or sale. And the verdict goes in favour of the assessee.

Customs

CHA prohibited to function as Customs broker - provisions of CBLR, 2013 cannot be interpreted in such way so as to override the provisions of s. 146(2) of the Customs Act - appeal dismissed as not maintainable: CESTAT

VIDE orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai in the months of August &November, 2013, the appellant has been prohibited to function as a Customs Broker within his jurisdiction, as per the provisions of Regulation 23 of CBLR, 2013 pending inquiry proceedings under Regulation 20.

Clause (f) of sub-section (2) deals with the appeals. The said section specifically says that appeal against an order of suspension or revocation of a licence is only admissible if the Regulations so provide. Thus, there is no specific provision provided for in the Regulations to hear an appeal against an order of prohibition. Therefore, so long as the section 146(2) does not provide for appeal against an order of prohibition, it cannot be presumed that CBLR, 2013 provides for an appeal against the order of prohibition to be heard by this Tribunal.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements