Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Valuation - Commercial Construction Service - if value of pipes supplied by service recipient is not included in gross amount for purpose of abatement under Notification 15/2004 ST, benefit of Notification is not admissible - CESTAT

NICE arguments:

Pipe cannot be said to be used for providing the service of construction of pipelines. Suppose, the painting of aircraft is a taxable service. The aircraft cannot be said to be used for providing the painting service. What is used in the painting service is the paint and other consumable and not the aircraft itself.

Tribunal was not impressed!

Income Tax

Rectification of mistake – error apparent on record – ‘record' not defined – includes record available with AO: High Court

THE word 'record' has not been defined under Section 154 or in the defined Section. Therefore the said word will have to be given a wider import by including the record that is available with the assessing officer. It is neither necessary nor possible to set out exhaustively all the material that can possibly be regarded as forming part of the "record" for the purpose of examination under section 154(1) of the Act.

Central Excise

Mahindra's Commander is not a Public Transport Type Passenger Vehicle – CESTAT

THE issue is the classification of "Commander" range of vehicle manufactured by the appellants. Whereas the appellants claim classification under heading 8702 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 viz. a Public Transport Type Passenger Motor Vehicle, the department's case is that the vehicle is correctly classifiable under heading 8703. Obviously, classifying the entry 8703 fetches more Revenue.

Customs

Agents of containers not connected with Customs or police case about contents – Containers ordered to be released : Delhi High Court

IT is plain that as far as the Petitioner is concerned, it is merely a shipping line that facilitates the carriage inward of goods in the process of import. There is no liability attached to the shipping line itself for either payment of haulage charges or detention charges to the port authority or to CONCOR . At all times it was understood by the parties that the liabilities, if any, arising out of the import was governed by the terms of the contract between the consignor and the consignee. As far as the shipping line is concerned, it has furnished a bond to the customs authorities for importing the containers, and after unloading the goods carried therein at the destination indicated in the bill of lading, to re-export the containers to the country of origin.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements