Jurisprudentiol–Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

TDS on the charges you pay to a Barber? – No TDS on payments made to a hotel by a customer – CBDT Circular quashed- High Court

THERE are so many laws and complying with all of them is really a hard task. For instance did you know that you were required to deduct TDS on payments you make for lodging/boarding in a Hotel? Every time you checked into a hotel, you were violating this law! Well, there was a Board Circular to that effect. Surprised? Perhaps even the High Court was, when it observed, “If the contention of the revenue is accepted, then it would mean that even the hair cutting work done by a barber would be a 'work' and the person making payment to the barber would be covered under section 194C.”

Central Excise

CENVAT credit is available on plastic crates used as material handling equipment in factory premises as capital goods as also as input: CESTAT Larger Bench

A long disputed issue has been settled by the Tribunal Larger Bench.

The Larger Bench was required to decide as to whether the plastic crates used by the appellant as a material handling device within their factory premises would earn modvat credit either as capital goods or as input.

Such plastic crates are used for internal transportation of the raw material/semi-finished and finished goods from stores to processing machine and from one machine to other machine and to finished goods storage. As such, they are mainly used for storage and supply of different components of radiators, in the production of which the appellant is engaged, in the production line. These plastic crates, due to wear and tear on account of usage are also periodically replaced by the assessee.

Customs

Does reprography constitute infringement under Copyright Act and does Customs have power to adjudicate copyright issue or jurisdiction to declare prohibition and confiscate photocopied books, original of which was supplied by Government of Ethiopia – Tribunal sets aside order and remands the case

THE appellants through their CHA presented Shipping Bill dated 27.8.2007 for exportation of a consignment along with the invoice showing value of Rs.44,94,478.58 (FOB) and claiming DEPB benefit of Rs.3,14,613.50 under S.No . 457 of Group no. 62, declaring that the consignment consists of 626 cartons of Printed books for educational reference. The consignment showed Ministry of Education, P.O.Box No. 1367, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, as the consignee.

A routine examination of the consignment was carried out by the Department on sample checking basis. On examination of one book, it was found that the book was not original printed book but same was a photocopy of book titled “Computer Organization and Architecture” showing the name of the author as William Stallings.

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements