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

By Vijay Kumar

Customs

Assessee from Chandigarh - Original order passed by Customs Commissioner, Mumbai – appellate order passed by CESTAT, Delhi – which High Court has jurisdiction? no person should be left without a remedy- Supreme Court

The adjudication orde was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (EP Mumbai) and the appeal against that order was adjudicated by CESTAT. Against the order of CESTAT, Appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court. Prima facie, the High Court was of the view that the appeal was not maintainable before it and, therefore, the appellant withdrew the said appeal to file it before the appropriate High Court. Since the cause of action arose at Chandigarh it was submitted that the Punjab and Haryana High Court has jurisdiction. The P&H High Court held that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as the original order was passed by Adjudicating authority at Mumbai and the appellate order was passed at Delhi by the CESTAT.

Now where does the assessee go? There has to be a remedy, but please wait till tomorrow to know what it is.

DRI files complaint in wrong court - Customs offence case filed in wrong court can continue in right court : Delhi HC

DRI intercepted vehicles outside Delhi, brought the vehicles and goods and the accused to its Lodhi Road office and filed complaints against them before the Metropolitan magistrate at Delhi. After ten years of trial, a plea was raised that the Delhi magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the cases as no part of cause of action accrued at Delhi. The magistrate agreed and returned the complaints to the DRI to file it in the competent court.

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 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.

Central Excise

Exporter gets garments manufactured on job work - entitled to CENVAT credit and as goods exported are entitled to refund of unutilized credit

THE appellants are engaged in the manufacture and export of garments, which became dutiable with effect from 01.04.2003. They had got certain quantity of garments manufactured at the premises of M/s. Celebrity Fashions Ltd. (CFL, for short) by supplying the raw material (fabric) to them during the period August, 2003 to March, 2004 when the garments were dutiable. The appellants and M/s. CFL are family concerns. The practice which was prevalent during the material period was that M/s. CFL would procure raw material in the name of their sister units including the appellants and allocate these goods to such units depending upon their export quota as determined by the Textile Committee. In the case of the appellants, a major part of the quantity of fabric procured by M/s. CFL in the name of the appellants were retained by them for job work and the balance quantity was supplied to the appellants for conversion to garments. The quantity of fabrics retained by M/s. CFL for conversion into garments as job work for the appellants constitutes the subject-matter of this case. The garments so manufactured by M/s. CFL as job worker for the appellants were cleared for export in the name of the appellants.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements