Jurisprudentiol - Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 - Action of importers in purchasing demand draft from fraudster can at most be an act of erroneous business diligence on their part - having discharged customs duty and interest on all the goods imported by them, question of visiting them with penalty does not arise: CESTAT

ON an investigation, it was noticed that Shri Malleshwar Rao and Shri Jayesh were engaged in forging the signatures of the cashier of the Customs Dept. on the TR6challans and forging signatures of Customs Officers on the reverse of photo copy of the duplicate copy of Bill of Entry and clearing consignments from the tank terminals.

The modus operandi adopted by Shri Malleshwar Rao was forging the signature of the cashier of Customs on TR6 challans against the demand draft which were received by him and utilizing the said demand drafts for clearance of consignments of various other importers by en-cashing the amounts indicated on the demand drafts & collecting the cheques from the importers in various names.

Income Tax

Whether when assessee is school certificate examination body, a mere hike in fees to general surplus would exclude it from ambit of Sec 10(23)(vi) - NO: HC

ASSESSEE challenged the order passed by DGIT(E) refusing to grant exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi). The assessee is a society registered under Societies Registration Act and is listed as a body conducting public examinations under Delhi School Education Act. The assessee applied for approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) for AY 1999-2000 to 2001-02 to CBDT which was rejected by CBDT stating that it was not an educational institution but was an examination body which conducts examinations for ICSC and ISC and therefore, could not be granted the exemption as an educational institution.

It also filed application for approval u/s 10(23C)(vi) for subsequent years, which were not disposed off. For AY 2008-09 to 2010-11, DGIT (E) dismissed the application on the ground the assessee was not an educational institution but an examination body conducting examinations for ISCE and ISC.

The issues before the Bench are - Whether when the assessee is a school certificate examination body, a mere hike in fees to general surplus would exclude it from the ambit of Sec 10(23)(vi); Whether a provision of service in the nature of charity would not cease to be charitable only because it entails receiving a charge for the same and Whether merely because the funds of the assessee may not have been utilized in the best possible manner cannot lead to a conclusion that they have not been applied to the object for which the assessee has been established. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.

Central Excise

CE - Appeal is maintainable before Tribunal against an order passed by Commissioner (A) dismissing appeal for non-compliance of stay order - matter no longer res integra : CESTAT

THIS is an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (A) dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee for non-compliance with the Stay order passed in terms of s.35F of the CEA, 1944.

The Revenue representative raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal.

Tribunal observed that the issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Girnar Transformers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Kanpur - 2014-TIOL-305-CESTAT-DEL wherein the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that appeal dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance of stay order and the assessee's appeal under Section 35B is maintainable before the Tribunal.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements