Jurisprudentiol - Monday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Appellant allowing another company to use its plant, machinery and equipment by a conducting agreement for period September, 2004 to July, 2005 - whether services are liable to tax under 'support services of business or commerce' - issue involves a serious triable question - petitioner entitled to a complete waiver of pre-deposit: HC

THE appellant entered into a conducting agreement on 25th August, 2004 by which it allowed the use of its plant, machinery and equipment by a company called International Synthfabs Private Ltd. (ISPL) for a period of eleven months from September 2004 to July 2005. It is the allegation of the department that the agreement involved the rendering of ‘support services of business or commerce' within the meaning of Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act as amended and, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax.

Income Tax

Whether hiring of machinery for purpose of using them in assessee's business amounts to contract for carrying out a work as contemplated u/s 194C - NO: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether the hiring of machineries for the purpose of using them in the assessee's business amounts to a contract for carrying out any work as contemplated u/s 194C; Whether mere hiring of a machinery can be regarded as payment made for a contract for carrying out any work attracting the provisions of section 194C; Whether mere providing of the machinery without any manpower can be termed as carrying out of any work by the plant and machinery owners and Whether when a contract is for machinery hire and not for carrying out any work, the provision of section 194C get attracted. And the verdict goes against the Revenue.

Central Excise

It is for Revenue to prove clandestine manufacture - matter remanded: CESTAT

A demand of almost Rs.50 lakhs has been confirmed & upheld by the Commissioner(A) against the appellant along with imposition of equivalent penalty and interest. The reason for this confirmation is the following allegation made by the Revenue - that the appellant has clandestinely removed the goods manufactured; that for such surreptitious manufacture & clearance they had received imported polyester chips on which duty liability was discharged by one M/s Shri Kami Enterprises.

See our Columns Monday for the judgements