Jurispruden tiol – Tomorrow ' s cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Non-realisation of export proceeds even after six months; no material produced to prove that requisite steps were taken to repatriate – appeal dismissed: Supreme Court

Appellants had placed no material whatsoever as to what steps were taken for repatriation of the amount involved. According to Section 18(2) without general or special permission of the Reserve Bank of India , the exporter is required to repatriate the sale proceeds within the prescribed period of six months. Section 18(3) creates a rebuttable legal presumption against the exporter whenever the prescribed period expires without repatriation of the export proceeds to the effect that exporter had not taken requisite steps to obtain repatriation of the payment

Central Excise

L & T case - Appeals by Revenue of Rs 1.83 Cr and by assessee of Rs 6.71 lakhs, both rejected by Tribunal

THERE are two appeals filed in the present case. One appeal is by the Revenue against the dropping of a demand of Rs.1.83 crores and the second is by the assessee against confirmation of demand of Rs.6.71 lakhs with equal penalty.

The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of glass bottles and is availing modvat credit. There are three issues involved in the case –

• Non-inclusion of the value of primary packing material supplied free of cost by customers;

• Clearance of freshly manufactured bottles to customers in place of rejects received;

• Removal of modvatted inputs without payment of duty.

Income Tax

Assessee cannot confer jurisdiction on Authorities: When power has been conferred upon two authorities concurrently, either one of them can exercise that power and once a decision is taken to exercise power, that exercise must be terminated by that authority only: High Court

It is not that one authority can start exercising a power and the other authority having concurrent jurisdiction can conclude the exercise of that power. This perhaps may be permissible in a situation where both the authorities jointly exercise power but it certainly is not permissible where both the authorities concurrently exercise power. One example that immediately comes to the mind is that of grant of anticipatory bail. Both the Sessions Judge and the High Court have concurrent power. It is not as if a part of that power can be exercised by the High Court and the balance power can be exercised by the Sessions Judge. If the High Court is seized of an application for anticipatory bail it must deal with it and similarly if the Sessions Judge is seized of an anticipatory bail, he must deal with it.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements