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

Assessee's claim that gold was willed to her by her father in 1928, but was handed over to her in 1980 (promptly seized by Income Tax in 1983) - not accepted - reference application answered in favour of Revenue : Bombay HC

On 29th August, 1983, the Income Tax Officer passed an order under Section 132(5) of the Act rejecting the explanation of the assessee that the jewellery found during the course of search was from the estate of her father and accordingly made addition of Rs.1,65,000/- as unexplained investments in jewellery.

Customs

Service charges for foreign tourism company - Forex carried by passenger - liable for confiscation : Tribunal

THE appellants are engaged in the business of handling tour activity and for this purpose they entered into contract with the foreign tourism company and remit the amounts payable through bank accounts after opening foreign currency accounts as permitted by RBI. M/s Lama Desert Tours, Dubai was providing services in respect of tourist sent by the appellants to Dubai.

Central Excise

Cost of duty paid bought out items cleared with CPU, not includible in assessable value : CESTAT

THE appellant company was clearing Central Processing Units (CPU). They were also supplying certain bought out item as per the customers' requirement. The appellant's contention is that they had not taken modvat credit in respect of bought out items and such bought out items were of reputed company and were already bearing brand name. Therefore, in terms of the customers requirement such bought out items were supplied. The appellants contend that these bought out items did not form part of the CPU supplied by them to their customers. Therefore, the value of bought out items was not required to be added, as claimed by the department. This contention was accepted by the Additional Commissioner in Order-in-Original, however, the Revenue being aggrieved filed an application under Section 35E (2) Central Excise Act before Commissioner (A) who has taken a view that the assessee ought to have added the value of the bought out items in the assessable value and as the same has not been done, therefore, the order of the Additional Commissioner is not correct in law.

Tomorrow is the festival of lights

See our columns Monday for the judgments