Jurispruden tiol – Monday ' s cases

By Vijay Kumar

Legal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.Central Excise

CESTAT rapped for hotchpotch manner in deciding case without application of mind, and without examining entire record, from appropriate standpoint; Tribunal directed to dispose appeals expeditiously, but not to adopt any slipshod method, under garb of expeditious disposal: High Court

A look at the order of the learned Tribunal shows an entirely sorry state of affairs; the matters have been decided by the learned Tribunal in absolute hotchpotch manner, without application of mind, and without examining the entire record, from the appropriate standpoint, to arrive at an ultimately reconcilable conclusion, of the whole scenario.

The impugned judgment is set aside whole hog, and the matters are remanded back to the learned Tribunal, for deciding the appeals afresh, bearing in mind the observations made above, obviously, the natural consequence of setting aside will flow. Since the matter is already very old, it is expected, that the Tribunal will decide the appeals expeditiously, but shall not adopt any slipshod method, under the garb of expeditious disposal.

Customs

Anti-dumping duty is payable during the interregnum, after the provisional duty lapsed but before the definitive duty was notified; Larger Bench decision binding on division benches - CESTAT

It is quite often seen that the Government imposes Anti Dumping Duty on a provisional basis for six months and then forgets about it, allows it to lapse but later wakes up and issues a definitive anti dumping duty, effective from the original date of provisional notification. There is often a gap between the end of provisional duty and the beginning of the definitive notification. For example in the instant case, provisional anti dumping duty was imposed on C FL on 21.12.2001 and it was to be effective till 20.6.2002. Definitive anti dumping was imposed on 10.12.2002, that is six months after the provisional anti dumping lapsed.

Now the question is “can anti dumping duty be levied during the period 21.6.2002 to 9.12.2002?”

Income Tax

Settlement Commission is not a forum to enable dishonest taxpayers to continue his dishonest conduct and still claim benefit: Madras HC

TO arrest a growth in mounting tax arrears the Govt has provided assessees the choice of settling their disputes, and one can file an application for the same before the Settlement Commission. But it is not without a condition. The settlement option is not available to - what the Madras High Court has held in the latest decision - dishonest assessees. The Bench observes that an application to the Commission is not intended to enable a dishonest assessee to continue his dishonest conduct and still claim benefit which can be conferred by the Commission if the Commission were to ultimately make an order of settlement. An assessee is not allowed to approach the Commission without disclosing full and true income and such true, full and honest disclosure is a pre-condition for invoking the Commission's jurisdiction under section 245C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

See our columns Monday for the judgements