Jurisprudentiol- Tomorrow's casesLegal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.

By Vijay Kumar

Anti-dumping

Anti dumping duty on seamless grade alloy and non-alloy steel billets, bars and rounds originating in or exported from Russia, China and Ukraine - there was no valid reason for the Government to prematurely withdraw the duty - Government directed to review whether the duty should continue beyond five years - assessments to be provisional from 1.2.2008 - High Court

THE Petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ to the Central Government not to withdraw the anti-dumping duty imposed by Notification No.65/2001-Cus dated 25th June, 2001. Anti-dumping duty was provisionally imposed by Notification No. 151/2000-Cus dated 26th December, 2000 till 25th June, 2001. Thereafter, it was extended by the Notification dated 25th June, 2001 and was to remain in force for 5 years with effect from 26th December, 2000. However, it was prematurely withdrawn by Notification No.69/2005-Cus dated 19th July, 2005

Central Excise

Notification 30/2004CE - Nylon twine manufactured out of exempted Nylon mono-filament yarn - When the language of the notification does not lend itself to the interpretation of the Revenue, the benefit cannot be denied - Tribunal.

The short fact involved in the present appeals before the Tribunal was as to whether the appellants are entitled for exemption to Nylon Twine manufactured from Nylon Multi-filament yarn of 210 deniers, in terms of notification 6/2002CE, dated 1.3.2002 & the later notification 30/2004CE, dated 9.7.2004.

Income Tax

It was incumbent on the Assessing Officer to show in the reasons recorded by him that any income escaped assessment due to error or omission on the part of the assessee in not disclosing all material facts - DR not prepared - adjournment refused - ITAT

The DR pointed out that she has not prepared the case for lack of time and, therefore, the case may be adjourned.

The counsel for the assessee pointed out that the facts are clear from the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and, therefore, there is no reason to adjourn the hearing of the case. After hearing preliminary arguments on this issue, the request for adjournment of the DR was refused and the case was proceeded with. Thereafter, the learned DR did not make any argument in the matter thereafter.

Now had the DR said that she was not feeling well and sought an adjournment, it would have been surely given, but for her honest admission that she was not prepared, the Revenue lost the chance of defending the case.

See our columns tomorrow for th judgements