SUPREME COURT OF INDIA while deciding the Civil Appeal No. 786 of 2010 with C.A. Nos. 787-792 of 2010, on 20.01.10, in re: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs EMPTEE POLY-YARN PVT. LTD, observed as follows: -

QUOTE: Repeatedly this Court has recommended to the Deaprtment, be it under Excise Act, Customs Act or the Income Tax Act, to examine the process applicable to the product in question and not to go only by the dictionary meanings. This recommendation is not being followed over the years. Even when the assessee gives an opinion on a given process, the Department does not submit any counter opinion wherever such counter opinion is possible. PRIMA FACIE, however, in this case, we do not see possibility of any counter opinion to the opinion given by the Mumbai University, vide letter dated 10th July, 1999.

[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com      and click on the citation taxind_2010_sc_ca_786]

SUPREME COURT ORDERS

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS Customs Act, DICTIONARY MEANING, Excise Act, INCOME TAX ACT, PRIMA FACIE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, while deciding the Writ petition no. 2686 of 1993, on 18.8.09, in re: RAMESH SAKALCHAND JAIN vs UNION OF INDIA, it was held as follows:-

QUOTE: The question before us for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in arriving at a conclusion it has arrived at namely that it was not the forum to hear the appeal arising from an order passed by the Dy. Collector. The issue whether Dy. Collector rightly heard the matter has not been convassed before us. In our opinin, considering the provisions of Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 , the Tribunal was within the jurisdiction to arrive at a finding which it has arrived at. Apart from that, in the order dated 30th January, 1990 which was served on the petitioner along with the forwarding communication, it was clearly set out that the appeal against the order would lie with the Collector of Customs [Appeals]. It is therefore not a case where the petitioner was caught by surprise. It is not possible to accept that a failure by the consultant will give cause to the petitioner to approach this court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. UNQUOTE

[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_bom_wp_2586]

HIGH COURT ORDER

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS APPEAL TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, Customs Act, JURISDICTION

The High Court of Judicature at Madras while deciding the W.P. Nos. 707-716, 336-350, 779-780, 884, 1772-1788 and 2085-2087 of 2009, on 15/04/2009, in re : ISAK EBINESAR vs CHAIRMAN, CBEC, N. DELHI observed as follows : -

QUOTE: One need not take recourse to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, for solving the riddle on hand. By an amendment introduced under Section 113 of the Finance Act, 2001, Section 159-A was inserted into the Customs Act, 1962.

Section 159-A of the Customs Act, 1962 is actually in pari materia with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. There are only two differences between the two provisions viz., ( i ) while the General Clauses Act, speaks only about Act or Regulation, Section 159 – A of the Customs Act, speaks about Rules, Regulations, Notifications and Orders and ( ii ) while the General Clauses Act, speaks only about repeal, Section 159-A takes into account any amendment, repeal, suppression or rescission of an existing Rule, Regulation, Notification or Order.

[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com  and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_mad_wp_707_716]

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT

 VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS 1962, Customs Act, Finance Act, General Clauses Act, in pari materia, Notifications, Orders, Regulation, Rules