Jurisprudentiol – Friday's cases

By Vijay Kumar

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

Appellant undertaking job work on materials received under rule 4(5)(a) of CCR, 2004 - Soaps are covered in Third Schedule to CEA, 1944 and find a mention against serial no. 40 - activity of packing/repacking or multi-piece packaging of soaps could be construed as an activity of ‘manufacture' under CEA, 1944 - even if it is held that activity amounts to BAS, notification 8/2005-ST grants exemption from ST - adjudicating authority has not given any findings on these issues - matter remanded: CESTAT

THE appellant undertakes job-work for M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. The job-work undertaken relates to mixing of soap bits provided by M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and returning the same in 50 Kgs. or bigger bags as per the company's instructions and multi-piece packaging for which they receive a consideration from M/s. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.

The department found something “soapy” in this serial called ‘job work'.

Income Tax

Whether even if one business of assessee is closed, unabsorbed depreciation carried forward from said business can be set off against other business income - YES: ITAT

THE issues before the Bench are - Whether the commission expenses paid to agent for sale of property which the assessee could not prove, is liable to be disallowed; Whether even if one business of the assessee is closed, the unabsorbed depreciation from the said business can be set off against other business income and Whether the subsidy received to the assessee, which was not directly attributable to any fixed assets, is correctly treated as capital receipt. And the answers go in favour of the assessee.

Central Excise

Against a single order passed by adjudicating authority covering 4 SCNs, a single appeal filed - Commissioner(A) holding that since only one appeal filed, duty demanded in other three SCNs is sustained as not contested - Single appeal for a common order is proper - Pre-deposit ordered: CESTAT

IN this case, the allegations are not important as of now but the procedural part of passing and issuance of orders is! And one cannot miss the radical thinking on the part of the lower appellate authority.

Since all the notices involved a common issue, the adjudicating authority passed a single order dated 29.11.2011 and in the preamble mentioned that the Order-in-Original number is 22 & 25. [Probably "&" should have been either a hyphen or "to"] Obviously, the duty demanded in all the four SCNs were confirmed under the said o-in-o.

The appellant preferred "an" appeal before the Commissioner (A) mentioning in their appeal memorandum the details of the four SCNs and the duty demanded therein and confirmed in the O-in-O.

See our Columns Tomorrow for the judgements