Indirect Tax Newsletter - November 16, 2012

Profession:JSA Advocates & Solicitors



Notification No. 98/2012-Cus.(N.T.) dated November 14, 2012

Enhances tariff value of gold from USD 556 to USD 561 per 10 gram and of silver from USD 1039 to USD 1058 per kilogram.

CC Vs. Sujag Fine Chemicals India Ltd. [2012-TIOL-914-HC-MUM-CUS]

The High Court of Bombay, interpreting Notification No.32/97-Cus. dated April 1, 1997 ("Notification 32/1997") which provided for exemption from customs duty to imported goods used for execution of an export order placed on importer by supplier of goods for jobbing, held that in the absence of definition of the term 'jobbing' in Notification 32/1997, general meaning of the word 'jobbing' which means carrying out work as directed by supplier of raw material would be taken and definition of term 'job work' given in excise Notification No. 119/75- CE dated April 30, 1975 cannot be imported.


Central Excise

MGM Metallisers Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2012-TIOL-890-HC-AHM-CX]

The petitioner stopped manufacturing activities and his factory premises were given on lease to another company. Based on information that large scale evasion of duty was carried out by petitioner, central excise authorities carried out a search operation in factory premises since leased out to another company. The petitioner in civil application before the High Court of Gujarat contended that search warrant was without any legal basis as the petitioner had closed down its business, and premises which were leased out to another company cannot be searched as there was no authorization to search the other company. The High Court held that merely because some other company carried on its manufacturing activities from the same premises cannot be a ground to hold that entire search was invalid.

Prompt Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner of Central Excise [2012 (284) ELT 641]

The High Court of Calcutta while staying an order imposing penalty on directors of petitioner company under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 ("the Excise Rules") observed that said rule, which provides for imposition of penalty on any person who acquires possession of, or is any way concerned with transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any excisable goods that are liable to confiscation, is prima facie ultra vires Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

CCE Vs. Sutlej Coach Builders (P) Ltd. [2012 (284) ELT 658...

To continue reading