Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Intermediate products actually marketed - passes test of marketability: SC

THE consistent view of this Court is that the marketability is an essential criteria for charging duty and that the test of marketability is that the product which is made liable to duty must be marketable in the condition in which it emerges; the word 'Marketable' means saleable or suitable for sale and that it need not in fact be marketed but then the article should be capable of being sold to consumers, as it is without anything more; the essence of marketability of goods is neither in the form nor in the shape or condition in which the manufactured article is found but it is the commercial identity of the article known to the market for being bought and sold; the product in question is generally not being bought or sold or has no demand in the market, would be irrelevant.

Income Tax

Whether when there is no material to conclude that sum deposited in bank account is either wholly or partly undisclosed, prohibitory order issued u/s 132(3) is unsustainable in law: Orissa HC

THE questions before the HC are - Whether when the bank account, from which the sum was withdrawn by the Department during search under prohibitory order u/s 132(3), is already disclosed in the books of account and the Revenue could not prove that the particular amount was undisclosed, the action taken by the department is illegal and not in conformity with section 132 and whether the prohibitory order issued u/s 132(3) without forming any belief and without any material to conclude that the amount deposited in the bank account is either wholly or partly undisclosed, is unsustainable in law. And the assessee's writ is allowed.

Service Tax

No Service Tax on laying of Pipeline before 16.5.2005 and before 1.6.2007: HC

THE plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids etc., was included in the definition of 'erection commissioning or installation', for the first time, on 16 th June 2005. The reading of the additional counter shows, that the respondent has demanded the service tax from the petitioner, by treating it to be carrying on business for execution of work Contract. This plea of the respondent deserves to be rejected, as the work contract was, first time, Included under 65(105) (zzzza) with effect from 1 st June 2007.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements