Jurisprudentiol– Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Totally frivolous ROM application by Revenue–Tribunal says it is a figment of imagination and dismisses the same

THE Revenue seems to have a developed a fetish for ROM applications. Naturally, this escapist tendency of filing ROM applications in almost all matters instead of filing an appeal before the next appellate authority is going to take a toll in the days to come!

In the present case, the Revenue had appealed against an order of the Commissioner of Customs(Import), Nhava Sheva and the Tribunal had allowed the appeal by holding that the goods are to be confiscated with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs.7 lakhs.

Customs

Encashment of bank guarantee is not same as payment of duty–Refund provisions under Section 27 of Customs Act not applicable: CESTAT

The Tribunal held that refund of amounts encashed by bank guarantee is not covered by the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act and therefore there is no time limit to seek refund of the same. With the result the Revenue's desire of denying the refund claim to the respondent assessee came a cropper.

Income Tax

India-Netherlands DTAA-term 'tax' under Article 3-default or omission related to TP provisions u/s 92 not covered by default or omission in Article 3(d) - DTAA benefits allowed to assessee: ITAT

IN the context of India-Netherlands DTAA, the bone of contention is related to the term 'tax' used under Article 3. The issue is that does it exclude any amount payable in respect of omission or default? And the Tribunal has now held that the default or omission relating to the provisions of section 92 to 92F of the Act are not covered by the default or omission mentioned in Article 3(d) of DTAA. Thus the CIT(A) order was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

See our columns Monday for the judgements