Jurisprudentiol– Tomorrow's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

What is contained in reference works/technical Journals, or well known in trade/industrial circles, need not be established by independent `evidence': Oil cake is not a waste to be thrown away, but a valuable product with a distinct name, character, use and marketability. There can be no doubt that the oil cake was a finished goods eligible for transport subsidy – Supreme Court

WHEN considering whether the `finished goods' is a marketable product, distinct and different from the raw material from which it is produced, the fact that the finished goods is the main product, or is a parallel main product or is a by- product of the manufacturing process, may not make any difference. The question to be considered is whether oil cake can be said to be a `finished goods' produced by an industrial unit in accordance with its manufacturing programme approved by the state government. [this is a judgement of the Supreme Court delivered yesterday]

Central Excise

Transfer of CENVAT Credit – Rule 10 of CCR, 2004 – Transferring manufacturing activities to new premises with new plant and machinery – Arguable matter - Tribunal orders pre-deposit of the CENVAT Credit involved

ACCORDING to the department, the appellants have not fulfilled the condition stipulated under sub-rule 3 of Rule 10 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and there has been no shifting of the factory as such but it is totally a new factory with completely new plant & machineries and hence they are not entitled to claim the transfer of the CENVAT Credit in terms of Rule 10(1) read with sub-rule 3 of the said Rule.

Income Tax

Income tax - Concealment cannot be alleged before Accounting year ends: ITAT

IT is akin to a case where there is prohibition to move certain category of goods out of the State. A Truck operator is carrying such prohibited goods with the intention to cross the border of the State. But before he crosses the border, there is a change of heart and he returns before crossing the border. The question is, has the truck operator committed any offence, the answer is obvious no. Similarly, in the present case also, the goods may be lying unaccounted on the date of survey but that does not necessarily mean that the assessee would not have accounted for them before the year ended.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements