Jurisprudentiol– Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Imported components of TV cannot classified as TVs – Revenue loses big case against Sony in Supreme Court

IN this case the goods brought were not having the essential character of CTVs. We do not find anything to take a view that the goods were in unassembled or dis-assembled condition and they should be taken to be the complete CTVs, particularly when there is no finding recorded anywhere on facts that all these goods could make 1500 CTVs. However, we accept the argument that the goods brought in different consignments separately on the basis of valid import licences would not attract the import duty as if they were the finished goods. Rule 2(a) would apply only when the imported articles presented unassembled or disassembled can be put together by means of simple fixing device or by riveting or welding. In this case, complicated process would be required for the user of those parts.

Central Excise

Electrolyzed - Tribunal confirms a demand of Rs 23 lakhs along with penalties on Used Mercury Scrap ‘produced' by Grasim Industries Ltd

THEREFORE, the vital facts were wilfully suppressed by the appellants with the intention to evade payment of duty on UMS. Therefore, the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been rightly invoked and the extended period of five years is applicable for demanding duty. For the same reasons, the demand of interest under Section 11AB ibid and imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC ibid on the appellants are in order. The imposition of penalty on Shri A.S. Kothari, Senior Vice President (Marketing) is also justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Income Tax

TDS is only a vicarious liability and no demand on tax deductor if deductee has discharged tax obligation; But penalty is liable; No penalty when TDS not made due to confusion and legal opinion: ITAT

THE advice given by the legal expert M/s. C.C. Chokshi & co., cannot be said to be non- bonafide acted with any malafide intention. Moreover, the question as to whether the discount of Rs.129.90 Crores availed by the assessee can be considered to be the payment in the nature of interest contemplated u/s 194A also appears to be a debatable one, and thus the confusion existed in relation to the assessee's obligation to make deduction of tax at source can be considered to be a reasonable cause for the assessee not to make such deduction of tax at source, and consequently the penalty u/s 271C may not be attracted.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements