From our Legal Corner - Monday's casesLegal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.

By Vijay Kumar

Income Tax

Deduction for late PF payment disallowed - Sec 43B - Omission of second proviso not curative, and amendment cannot be treated as retrospective : Bombay HC

THE general perception is that our Income Tax Act is highly litigation-prone. If one talks of Sec 43B, it is widely regarded as more dispute-prone than the Act itself. Vide Finance Act 1983, it was inserted to curb the mischief of deliberate delays in payment of statutory liabilities. Then came two provisos which were added to the section by Finance Act 1987. The second proviso was quickly substituted by Finance Act, 1989. And, finally, vide Finance Act 2003, the second proviso was deleted. And this is the subject matter of dispute in this case in which the Bombay HC has held that the omission of the second proviso was not curative, and it cannot be said that the amendment is retrospective.

Customs

Import of PU coated fabric - Dispute on thickness of fabric - Revenue seizes goods but does not get them tested even after five months - goods and seized IC ordered to be released : Delhi HC

THE petitioner seeks

1. release of goods imported under bill of entry no. 583202 dated 24th April, 2007 on a value of US$ 1.90 per meter pending adjudication.

2. a direction to Customs to release the seized Indian currency of Rs.23.90 lakhs and to prohibit the customs from requiring the Petitioner to maintain a minimum balance of Rs. 4.89 lakhs in the bank accounts of the Petitioner.

Central Excise

Vicks Cough Drops manufactured on jobwork basis - Revenue's contention to assess goods on sale price of Procter and Gamble rejected by Tribunal

THE appellant is a job-worker for M/s Procter and Gamble India Ltd. They entered into an agreement with PGIL wherein PGIL shall supply the raw materials, manufacturing technology, packing materials etc. to the appellant on job work basis. It has been alleged that the transaction is not on principal to principal basis and the appellant is not an independent job worker and therefore, the appellant is liable to pay duty on the price charged by the depots of PGIL. The Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty along with interest.

The appellant contended that they are paying duty correctly on the value as determined as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints Vs Union of India.

See our columns Monday for the judgements