Jurisprudentiol - Tuesday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Roller blinds [Hdg 3925, 6303 and 7019] come into existence in factory premises and these blinds are installed at site - since these blinds can be shifted, though in dismantled condition, same cannot be said to be part of immovable property. limitation is mixed question of law and fact - revenue interest has to be safeguarded - pre-deposit ordered: CESTAT

THE appellant are in the business of installing rollers blinds, curtain tracks, etc. at site. For this purpose, items like fabrics, aluminium tubes, aluminium tracks, plastic brackets, metal brackets, chain, etc. are procured from outside. The roller blinds are of textile fabrics as well non-textile items (plastic). The aluminium sections are cut to the required size and after fixing the plastic brackets or metal brackets on the wall, the sections are fixed on which the roller blinds/vertical blinds are mounted. The department was of the view that the rollers or vertical blinds are chargeable to duty.

Income Tax

Whether when assessee hives off part of business to own sister concern for consideration, including non-compete fee, it can be said that when Management of both units are common, payment of non-compete fee is colourable device - YES: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether when the assessee hives off a part of its business to own sister concern for a consideration, including non-compete fee, it can be said that when the management of both the units are the same and the CEO is also the same, the payment of non-compete fee is a colourable device; Whether the final consideration received by the assessee in such a transaction also includes a part payment for goodwill generated over the years; Whether invocation of powers u/s 263 is sustainable in such a case; Whether assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 10B in respect of interest income earned on deposit as margin money and Whether the amount of reimbursement received relating to various expenses incurred for business will be considered as income from business and is eligible for deduction u/s 10B. And the verdict partly goes against the assessee.

Customs

Refund of SAD - When process undertaken on the imported goods does not amount to manufacture, refund of SAD cannot be denied: CESTAT

REFUND of SAD rejected as the importer had undertaken further working/processing on the imported goods before the goods are sold. The importer had undertaken cutting and slitting of the coils imported by them before they are sold. Also, classification of the goods imported is different from the classification of the goods sold. HELD - It is a settled law that, while considering whether the process amounts to manufacture is whether a new article with distinct name, character and use has emerged or not and not whether the tariff heading has changed.

See our columns Tomorrow for the judgements