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

By Vijay Kumar

Income Tax

Can Tribunal re-hear a matter on which oral orders have already been pronounced? - loss in trading of shares was a speculation loss : ITAT

The Tribunal noted the decisions of the Supreme Court and had held that unless the order of the Bench was signed by all Members constituting it and was dated, it was not an order of the Tribunal. It was also observed that the signed and dated order had to be communicated both to the assessee and to the Commissioner.

Customs

Merely walking through 'red channel' does not mean that concealed goods were not smuggled - COFEPOSA detention upheld : Bombay HC

HAVE you ever heard of a person who was released on bail approaching a court to cancel his bail bond? Why should any sane person do that?

But here is a case where exactly that happened. But why?

After he was released on bail, (he was absconding) a COFEPOSA detention order was issued against him. The only way he could avoid COFEPOSA was to go back to jail after getting his bail cancelled. But the Courts saw through the game and did not buy his arguments.

Service Tax

CHA and Steamer Agent cannot be classified under Business Auxiliary Service : Tribunal

THIS appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal confirming Service tax on the Custom House Agent on the ground that they are rendering services of arranging shipment of the export cargo and negotiating the same with shipping lines on behalf of their clients under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' with effect from 1-7-2003. The appellant's contention is that the activity carried out by them is not covered under 'Business Auxiliary Services'. However, their plea has been rejected Commissioner (Appeals).

Central Excise

Revenue wins Rs 2.6 Cr case; Tribunal satisfied that assessee had suppressed vital information - since their conduct not clean, revenue neutrality cannot be advanced to support claim of bona fide : CESTAT

''WE are unable to understand as to why the appellants undertook repacking and re-labelling of goods when the entire goods were transferred to their sister unit and the appellants' Consultant could not reply to the specific query put forth by us on this account." These observations of the Tribunal are enough indication as to why the appellant lost their case, at least as of now!

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements