Jurisprudentiol – Thursday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Income tax - Whether when assessee enters into contract with a builder to construct a building and also get approvals from authorities concerned, it is merely a case of transfer of right in land, and Sec 80IB(10) is not available - NO, it is available: Tribunal

THE issue before the Bench is - Whether when assessee enters into agreement with a builder to construct a building and also get approvals from various authorities, it is merely a case of transfer of right in the land and Sec 80IB(10) benefits cannot be allowed to the assessee. The verdict goes in favour of the assessee.

Central Excise

Temporary assignment of brand name - MOU is valid for five years and after five years both parties are at liberty to change - whether assessee eligible for SSI benefits - legal issue - difficult to come to conclusion as to whether the appellant has been able to make a strong prima facie case for full waiver – Pre-deposit ordered and matter remanded: CESTAT

APPELLANT was manufacturing mixer and grinder with brand name “VIPANCHI” and claiming the benefit of SSI exemption notification no. 8/2003-CE. On the ground that the brand name belongs to Sri Ram Kishan and not to the appellant, proceedings were initiated and finally a demand of duty of Rs.30,77,629/- with interest was confirmed and penalty was imposed. The lower appellate authority directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of the full amount of duty demanded and since the same was not made the appeal was rejected for non-compliance.

Central Excise

Appellants purchasing old and used industrial valves and subjecting them to processes such as machining, welding, drilling, grinding, gas cutting, assembling, painting etc., and thereafter transferring to their sister-company who affixed brand names of various other companies and disposed of goods – Process does not amount to manufacture - Appeal allowed: CESTAT

THE appellant is engaged in the manufacture of industrial valves. On the ground that the appellant had manufactured and cleared industrial valves with the brand names ‘Audco', ‘BHEL', ‘AIL' etc. which were not eligible for SSI exemption a show-cause notice was issued proposing to demand duty and proposing confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalty. Proceedings were dropped by the original authority on the ground that appellants had, in fact, repaired and reconditioned old valves and the process did not amount to manufacture and since the process did not amount to manufacture the question of payment of duty could not arise.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements