Page 25 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] INDEX - 15th June, 2020 xxiii
Strictures against CESTAT for non-consideration of facts and issue involved
and passing of cryptic order - The Tribunal being final fact finding body
is duty bound to discuss relevant facts, and issues arising in the case, and
then only, discussing the relevant law, case law and giving its own
reasons, can decide the case Court recorded its dismay at the tenor of the
cryptic order and set aside the order of the Tribunal — Commissioner of C. Ex.
& S.T., Chennai v. Hyundai Motor India Ltd. (Mad.) .................... 800
— against Revenue authorities - No doubt that the authorities functioning
under the Act must, as are in duty bound, protect the interest of the
revenue by levying and collecting the duty in accordance with law, no
less and also no more - It is no part of their duty to deprive any assessee
of the benefit available to him in law with a view to augment the
quantum of duty for the benefit of the revenue - They must act
reasonably and fairly — Sunchan Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
(Mad.) ......................................... 836
Tax recoverable account - Income-tax - Deduction as business expenditure -
Sales tax paid by assessee debited to separate ‘Sales Tax recoverable
account’ - Assessee could set off sales tax against his liability on sales of
finished goods i.e. vehicles - High Court correct in disallowing deduction
of amount in sale tax recoverable account - Haryana General Sales Tax
Act, 1973 - Section 43B of Income Tax Act, 1961 — Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (S.C.) ......................... 785
Territorial jurisdiction for filing Writ petition, location of Settlement Bench
in Delhi gives jurisdiction to Delhi High Court - See under WRIT
JURISDICTION ................................... 840
Tobacco products sale at Duty free shops at International Airports amounts
to exports - See under DUTY FREE SHOPS ................... 794
Unutilised credit at end of accounting year cannot be deducted as business
expenditure for Income Tax purpose - See under CENVAT/MODVAT
CREDIT ....................................... 785
VALUATION (CUSTOMS) :
— Drawings for vessels - ‘Nil’ commercial value cannot be based on
superfluity of goods in operations of importer - Section 14 of Customs
Act, 1962 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. -
Mumbai) ........................................ 849
— Exemption privilege not claimed - In such case, valuation has to be done
under Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods)
Rules, 2007 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. -
Mumbai) ........................................ 849
— It has to be equal for all purposes under Customs Act, 1962 - It is not
permissible to have ‘nil’ for assessment of Bills of Entry and different
value for redemption of goods — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.),
D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. - Mumbai) ............................. 849
— Revaluation - Importer has to be put on notice of rejection of declared
price - In absence of acceptable defence, confiscation of goods is
administrative overreach - Rule 12 of Customs Valuation (Determination
of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - Section 111(m) of Customs
Act, 1962 — S. Muthusamy v. Addl. Director General (Adj.), D.R.I., Mumbai (Tri. -
Mumbai) ........................................ 849

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  25