Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Classification - 'CD ROM' containing images of drawing and designs of engineering goods - not classifiable under tariff Heading 49.06 or under Heading 49.11 or Sub-Heading 8524.39 or 8524.90 - unless something patently wrong is demonstrated while classifying a particular product, Apex Court should not interfere: Supreme Court

IN the instant case, the Adjudicating Authority, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal has rejected the classification sought by the Appellants. Classification of goods involves technical and scientific evaluation and analysis. It is therefore important that unless something patently wrong is demonstrated while classifying a particular product, this Court should not interfere. This Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi Vs. Carrier Aircon Ltd. [2006-TIOL-69-SC-CX], has supported a similar view.

Income Tax

Refund - Can AO reject refund claims merely on ground that assessee referred to a wrong Section of I-T Act - NO, says HC and admonishes officer for pursuing frivolous litigation and burdening exchequer with avoidable interest liability: Patna High Court

CONTINUING frivolous litigation syndrome has turned Income Tax Department into a compulsive or obsessive litigant. Raising litigation on merit like in the Vodafone case is certainly a welcome example but denying refund to the taxpayer merely because the counsel for the assessee makes a typo error by referring to Sec 214 rather than Sec 244 is indeed an example of extremism in frivolity that prevails at the cutting-edge level of the Department.

Central Excise

CENVAT CREDIT - Tubes sold along with tyres, billed separately – not entitled to CENVAT Credit - Clearance as such - amount of credit to be paid; Assessee's letter to Department not factually correct - extended period applicable; misunderstanding of law – no penalty : High Court

THE packing of tube within the tyre along with the flap and partly inflating the tube, does not make the transaction anything other than a transfer or sale in the same form. In order to justify an input tax credit, the respondent-assessee ought to have used the item purchased as an input, whether it be accessory or not. Even though tubes and flaps are admittedly accessories for use of tyre, the purchase and resale of tubes and flaps along with the tyre does not make the transaction anything different from trading. The respondent-assessee is engaged in purchase and resale of tubes and flaps along with tyres in the replacement market and rightly they don't claim any CENVAT credit for the duty paid on tubes and flaps.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements