Jurisprudentiol - Wednesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Commissioner of Customs (General) should maintain consistency in passing the orders/decisions and should not follow policy of pick and choose – CESTAT

THE Commissioner of Customs should maintain consistency in passing the orders/decisions and should not follow the policy of pick and choose. In this case, the Commissioner of Customs (General) has followed the policy of pick and choose and there is no consistency in decision while dealing the same situation, thereby he revoked the CHA licence of the appellant, which cannot be permitted. In view of these observations, no merit in the impugned order, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief by making operative of CHA licence No. 11/97 by setting aside the revocation of CHA licence.

Income Tax

Whether electric energy has all trappings of an article or good, and thus, is eligible for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) - YES, rules ITAT

THE Commissioner observed that assessee was engaged in the activity of generation of power. According to the Commissioner, other businesses were not eligible to claim the benefit. He was of the opinion that generation of power cannot be equated with the production of article or thing because article or thing in common parlance was known as something tangible and moveable etc. Generation of power was giving energy as output and, therefore, activity was no way similar to the production of article or thing. According to the Commissioner, an article or thing was always associated with the concept of weight, mass and volume. Power or Electricity did not have any of these attributes. It had no volume, it did not occupy any space, no weight or no mass can be attributed to it. In the history of income-tax legalization, a distinction between the manufacturing undertaking and undertaking in generation of power had been maintained throughout.

Central Excise

Components of bus bodies are not marketable commodity and hence not excisable - Appeals allowed: CESTAT

THE components of bus bodies are meant for specific use in buses made by the appellant for repair and maintenance purposes. These components cannot be used in other buses made by other bus body builders. There is no evidence from the Revenue to show that the components are bought and sold in the market as commodity. The Commissioners finding that merely because goods are not bought and sold in the market does not make them non-marketable cannot be sustained in absence of any evidence from Revenue.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements