From our Legal Corner – Tomorrow's casesLegal Corner Icon — the image was hosted by the publisher and was not captured.

By Vijay Kumar

Supreme Court

Construction of road is works contract - deemed sale involved - quashing of SCN upheld : Apex Court

Even in a single and indivisible works contract there is a deemed sale of the goods which are involved in the execution of a works contract. Such a deemed sale has all the incidents of a sale of goods involved in the execution of a works contract where the contract is divisible into one for sale of goods and the other for supply of labour and services.

Income Tax

If AO fails to give reasons for accepting assessee's contentions, invocation of powers u/s 263 cannot be faulted with : ITAT

THE revisionary powers of Commissioner u/s 263 are to be exercised when the order of A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Whether, any kind of error comes within the scope of Sec.263 or there are some determinative factors, and what is the scope of power to be exercised by Commissioner under the said section are some of the issues which came up before the Tribunal for consideration in this case.

Central Excise

Notification 8/2003-CE does not bar credit of inputs used in final products that are exported - Refund allowable under Rule 5 of CCR : Tribunal

Paragraph 2(iii) of Notification No. 8/2003CE provides that the manufacturer shall not avail the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 3 or Rule 11 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, paid on inputs used in the manufacture of the specified goods cleared for home consumption but it could not be construed to mean that there exists a bar on availment of credit of inputs used in the final products, which are exported.

Furthermore, the terms and conditions set out in Notification 11/2002 (NT) dated 01/03/2002 did not bar the refund under rule 5 if the benefit of SSI notification 08/2003CE had been availed.

In absence of any application for ROM, it would be futile exercise on behalf of appellant to argue that order of Tribunal has held that appellant is not required to pay duty nor any penalty - Refund not admissible : CESTAT

See our columns tomorrow for the judgements