IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY AT GOA, while deciding on 27.3.2008 the Criminal appeal no. 39 of 2006 in re: ASST. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS [PREV.], GOA vs ANTHONY SEBASTIAN L D’SOUZA, it was observed as follows:-
QUOTE: A peruslal of the judgement clearly supports the contention of the appellant that there is no discussion of the evidence of investigating officer. The learned Trial Judge has merely stated : “P.W. 5 has investigated the case.” in the judgement in para 11. The learned Trial Judge is the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Margao. It is difficult to understand how the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could have made a statement like that and rested, though he was bound by his duty as a Magistrate trying the offence, to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Indeed the credibility of criminal Courts trying an offence rests on discussion of the evidence brought by the prosecution and the reasonings of the Court thereon. There is complete dereliction of duty by the Magistrate in discussing material evidence adduced by the prosecution in a case which requires serious consideration. This dreliction of duty has resulted in an acquittal of the respondent which PRIMA FACIE appears to be unjustified. UNQUOTE
[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2008_hc_bom_cra_39]
HIGH COURT DECISION.
VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS
complete derelictgion of duty, credibility of criminal courts
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA while deciding the Civil appeal no.8036 of 2009 with C.A.Nos. 8037-8044 of 2009, on 2.12.09, in re: INCOME TAX OFFICER, UDIAPUR vs ARIHANT TILES & MARBLES (P) LTD observed as follows:-
QUOTE : In the present case, we have extrated in detail the process undertaken by each of the respondents before us. In the present case, we are not concerned only with cutting of marble blocks into slabs. In the present case we are also concerened with the activity of polishing and ultimate conversion of blocks into polished slabs and tiles. What we find from the process indicated hereinabove is that there are various stages through which the blocks have to go through before they become polished slabs and tiles. In the circumstances, we are of the view tat on the facts of the cases in hand, there is certainly an acitivitywhich will come in the category of MANUFACTURE or PORDUCTION under Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act. As stated hereinabove, the judgement of this Court in AMAN MARBLE INDUSTRIES (PVT). LTD was not required to construe the word PRODUCTION in addition to the word MANUFACTURE. One has to examine the scheme of the Act also while deciding the question as to whether the activity constitutes MANUFACTURE or PRODUCTION. Therefore, looking to the nature of the activity stepwise, we are of the view that the subject activity certainly constitutes MANUFACTURE or PRODUCTION in terms of Section 80 IA. In this connection, our view is also fortified by the following judgements of this Court which have been fairly pointed out to us bt learned counsel appearing for the Department. UNQUOTE
[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_sc_ca_8036]
SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.
SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS
manufacture, production section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act
CESTAT BANGALORE BENCH vide final order no.1439 & 1440/09 dt. 01.12.09 in re: AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PVT LTD. vs CCEX BANGALORE observed as follows:-
QUOTE: We find that the impugned goods were assessed at the time of import for warehousing in terms of Notification Nos. 96/03 or 52/03 -Cus and 22/2003-CE. This assessment ic claimed to have been supported by the essentiality certificate issued by the licensing authority. We find that this assessment cannot be revised by the authorities denying the exemption benefit without following due process of law. The revenue has no case that the rate of duty or tariff description of the warehoued goods had changed to warrant a revision of assessment. In any case question of assessment arises only when the goods are removed from the warehouse. In the instant case the impugned goods were not held to be imporperly removed for the reason that warehousing period had expired and proper officer had not granted exension of warehousing period. Moreover the goods involved in Order No.23/08 were found by the original authoirty to be prototype / technical sample. Such goods undisputedly are entitled to exemption…………
The order no. 24/08 is passed on the basis that APC could not show certain warehoused goods for verification before the officers. Demand is on the basis that the impugned goods had been removed from the warehouse, clandestinely. The lower authorities did not rely on any evidence for finding of such removal from the warehouse. The assessee all along maintained that the impugned goods were available in stock in the warehouse. We find that the impugned demand of duty cannot be sustained under Section 72(a) of the Act without evidence of their removal as envisaged in the said section. UNQUOTE
[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_szb_b_11439_1440]
CESTAT ORDERS
VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.
CESTAT ORDERS
CLANDESTINE, REMOVAL, WAREHOUSED
