Jurisprudentiol – Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Whether when entire business is taken over as going concern, and a composite fee is paid for same, plea of assessee that fee paid for use of trade mark is different from non-compete fee is sustainable - NO, says ITAT

THE issues before the Tribunal are - Whether trade mark is inseparable from business and hence when the entire business is taken over as a going concern the trademark alone holds no meaning and whether when the entire business is taken over as a going concern, and a composite fee is paid for the same, the plea that the fee paid for use of trade mark is different from non-compete fee is sustainable. NO is the Tribunal's order.

Central Excise

Work-in-progress goods and semi-finished goods are not defined - common parlance meaning to be used: CESTAT

DURING the Mumbai flood in July, 2005, the appellant's factory was submerged in water, therefore, the raw material, work-in-progress/semi finished goods and finished goods were lost in flood. The appellants filed a claim, which was settled by the Insurance Company by deducting the Central Excise duty element. Thereafter, the appellants filed a claim for remission of duty on work-in-progress/semi-finished goods and finished goods, which was denied.

Service Tax

Service Tax paid on telephone installed at partner's residence is also Cenvatable: CESTAT

THE department could not produce any evidence, contrary to the fact that the telephones were not used for the business purpose and that the expenditure was borne by the appellant company and cost of input service, the department also could not produce any evidence that they have undertaken any investigation to find out that the telephone service was used for other than business purpose.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements